There is a case brewing at the United States Supreme Court, and if you blink, you may miss what is truly at stake.
Washington State passed ESSB 5078, a law that prohibits the sale, distribution, and manufacture of magazines with more than ten rounds. This law does not prohibit firearms. It does not prohibit ammunition. It does not even prohibit magazines, only large-capacity ones. You can still own 10-round magazines, carry several, reload, and defend yourself.
What’s the goal? Make mass shootings less lethal. That is it. Washington’s legislature passed the law, the governor signed it, and the Washington Supreme Court upheld it.
So, what is the problem?
27 Republican-led states argue that a law passed by another state’s government is unconstitutional because it does not apply to them or their citizens.
They have filed an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to overturn it.
Wait. Why?
To be clear, no one in Arkansas, Montana, or Texas is affected by Washington’s law.
So, why are red state AGs inserting themselves?
Here is the truth. They’re not concerned that Washington’s law will fail.
They are afraid it will be successful.
They’re afraid Washington will demonstrate that serious gun safety legislation can be passed, high-capacity magazines can be regulated under the Constitution, and gun violence can be reduced without violating anyone’s rights.
What happens if that idea takes hold? Their people may ask, “Why can’t we have that too?”
They Don’t Actually Believe in “States’ Rights” at All
Let’s be real. Red state leaders aren’t defending “states’ rights” in any principled way. They only yell “local control!” when it suits their agenda and become silent or hostile when blue states use that same autonomy for progressive ends.
They weren’t cheering when:
California raised environmental standards
Colorado legalized recreational marijuana
Massachusetts expanded LGBTQ+ protections
Illinois passed universal background checks
Oregon decriminalized small drug possession
They hated those moves. But here’s the thing: They couldn’t generate the same political clout, outrage machine, or judicial leverage to stop those — not yet.
Gun policy, however? That’s their golden ticket.
It riles the base.
It activates the NRA.
It triggers the “they’re coming for your guns” panic.
It gives them a clear path to weaponize the courts, especially post-Bruen.
They’re not defending states’ rights. They’re just using Washington’s law as a scapegoat to score national political points.
When they say, “states’ rights,” what they really mean is: “Only our kind of state. Only our kind of rights.”
Constitutional Reality Check
Let’s talk about the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Washingtonians can still keep and bear arms.
They just can’t own one specific kind of accessory that enables mass violence.
And that’s legal. Under the Constitution. Under Bruen, even.
Courts have long upheld limits on weapon types, features, and accessories.
This isn’t about banning guns. It’s about regulating firepower.
Just like we regulate:
Fully automatic machine guns
Explosives
Flamethrowers
Short-barreled shotguns
Nuclear warheads (yeah, you don’t get one of those either)
No one says your rights are being infringed because you can’t buy a rocket launcher at Walmart. So why is a 100-round mag sacred?
This Is Like Saying:
“You can’t order the burger because I am a vegetarian.”
“You can’t dye your hair because my religion says I can’t.”
“You can’t name your kid Josh because my Josh broke my heart in 4th grade.”
It is not about protecting anyone. It is about exerting control over everyone.
This is not about Washington or its people’s rights. It’s about the decisions those 27 states made based on their own values. And, hey, it was their right to choose differently, but not to dictate what someone else did.
They are afraid of what Washington represents: a viable model for reasonable, constitutional gun laws.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court may or may not hear the case. If it does, and sides with the 27 AGs, it may establish a precedent that limits the ability of all states, not just Washington, to regulate gun safety. What begins with gun safety will eventually lead to other pieces of legislation.
That is the real goal: to prevent future reform rather than to protect rights.
It is not a legal concern. It is ideological insecurity.
Let’s not pretend this is about freedom.
Bottom line
Washington State made a constitutional, democratic decision. Red states want to take away that option, not because it affects them, but because it could inspire you.
If that doesn’t make you angry, it should.
This is not about magazines. The fear is that people will begin to believe that change is possible. It is about the idea that someone else may be content with a decision they refuse to make.
