2 DUIs can cost gun rights, WA court says
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Maura Losch/Axios
The state's highest court has upheld a law in which a second DUI within seven years can cost some Washington residents their right to possess a gun.
The big picture: Thursday's ruling shows how state courts are applying United States v. Rahimi — a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld some firearm restrictions for those found to pose a danger to others — to other categories of people.
- The opinion affirmed one of Washington's newer firearm restrictions.
The decision is drawing the ire of gun rights advocates in the state.
- Dave Workman of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation told Axios many people won't learn they are prohibited from possessing firearms until they seek to purchase a gun, apply for a concealed pistol license or undergo a background check.
- King County had 2,258 of the state's recorded 22,222 DUI filings in 2025, with 2,318 in Pierce County and 2,642 in Snohomish County.
Driving the news: In a 5-4 decision, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a 2023 law barring firearm possession for people convicted of two qualifying DUI-related offenses within seven years.
- The challenge was brought by two Spokane-area men who were denied concealed pistol licenses because of their DUI records.
- The court found the state may temporarily disarm repeat drunk drivers even if they have not committed a violent crime.
- People affected by the law can petition to have their firearm rights restored after five years.
What they said: Writing for the majority, Justice Steven González concluded the law fits within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The majority pointed to historical restrictions involving dangerous individuals, people convicted of serious crimes and regulations aimed at preventing the harmful combination of alcohol and firearms.
- "Taken together, our nation's history of limiting the firearms rights of those who have been convicted of serious crimes and those who have a history of dangerous use of intoxicants ... is sufficient justification for the regulation here," González wrote.
The other side: Four justices dissented, arguing the state failed to show that repeat DUI convictions justify restricting a constitutional right.
- "The majority does not adequately explain why DUI convictions create a 'plausible' expectation of potential, future firearm misuse or why the conclusion that a person who drives under the influence will one day misuse firearms is anything more than speculative," Justice G. Helen Whitener wrote.
What's next: The ruling adds another data point to the ongoing legal debate over when people can be temporarily disarmed under the Second Amendment.