Washington Supreme Court Addresses Washington DUI Firearm Rights
The Washington Supreme Court recently issued a significant Second Amendment decision in McLellan v. Brown, No. 103799-6 (June 11, 2026). The case examined whether Washington may temporarily prohibit firearm possession by individuals who have multiple driving under the influence (DUI) convictions within seven years.
The court ultimately upheld the law. As a result, repeat DUI offenders in Washington may lose their firearm rights for a period of time without violating the Second Amendment.
The decision is important because it applies the United States Supreme Court’s recent firearm cases, including New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, to Washington law.
What Law Was Challenged?
The case involved RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D).
Under this statute, a person may not possess firearms if they have been convicted of two or more DUI-related offenses within seven years. The restriction is not permanent. Instead, a person may petition to restore firearm rights after meeting statutory requirements and remaining law-abiding for a specified period.
The legislature enacted the law in 2023 after reviewing evidence suggesting a connection between repeated alcohol-related offenses and future violent conduct.
The Facts of McLellan v. Brown
Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway both had multiple DUI convictions within seven years.
When they applied for concealed pistol licenses, their applications were denied because of the firearm prohibition contained in RCW 9.41.040.
The plaintiffs challenged the law and argued that it violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Specifically, they argued that DUI convictions are not violent crimes and that the government lacked a historical tradition of disarming individuals based solely on repeated drunk-driving offenses.
How Courts Analyze Second Amendment Challenges
In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court established a historical-tradition test.
Under that framework, courts must determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The government cannot simply argue that a law promotes public safety. Instead, it must identify historical examples that are sufficiently similar to the modern restriction.
The Washington Supreme Court applied that framework in McLellan.
Why the Court Upheld the Law
Historical Tradition of Disarming Dangerous Individuals
The court first concluded that American history contains examples of firearm restrictions directed at groups considered dangerous.
According to the majority, repeat DUI offenders fall within a category of individuals who present a heightened risk of dangerous conduct.
The court emphasized that Washington’s law targets people who repeatedly engage in risky and unlawful behavior rather than individuals who have committed a single offense.
Historical Restrictions Involving Alcohol and Firearms
The court also relied on historical laws regulating the combination of alcohol and firearms.
Historically, many jurisdictions prohibited carrying firearms while intoxicated or otherwise regulated weapon possession when alcohol created public safety concerns.
Although those laws were not identical to Washington’s modern statute, the court concluded that exact historical matches are not required under Bruen.
Serious Criminal Conduct Can Justify Firearm Restrictions
The majority further noted that governments have historically imposed significant restrictions on individuals convicted of serious offenses.
While DUI is not classified as a violent crime, the court found that repeated DUI convictions demonstrate conduct that poses a substantial risk of harm to the public.
As a result, the legislature could reasonably classify repeat DUI offenders as a group subject to temporary firearm restrictions.
The Court Rejected Individual Dangerousness Hearings
One of the most important aspects of the decision involved the plaintiffs’ argument that the State should prove they were personally dangerous.
The Washington Supreme Court rejected that position.
Instead, the court held that the relevant question is whether the legislature may regulate a category of people based on historical tradition.
Because the law applies to repeat DUI offenders as a group, the State was not required to prove that either plaintiff posed an individual threat.
This portion of the opinion could influence future firearm litigation involving other categories of prohibited possessors.
The Dissenting Opinion
Four justices disagreed with the majority.
The dissent argued that the Second Amendment protects firearm ownership unless the government can identify a close historical analogue.
According to the dissent, historical firearm restrictions generally targeted people who committed violent acts or who had been found to pose a specific threat to others.
The dissent emphasized that neither plaintiff had committed a violent firearm offense.
Therefore, the dissent concluded that Washington’s law extends beyond the historical limits recognized by the United States Supreme Court.
Why McLellan v. Brown Matters
The decision is one of the most significant Washington firearm cases issued since Bruen.
The ruling confirms that Washington may temporarily restrict firearm possession based on repeated DUI convictions.
It also demonstrates that courts may uphold firearm regulations when historical traditions show a long-standing concern about dangerous conduct, alcohol abuse, and public safety.
Future Second Amendment challenges in Washington will likely rely heavily on the reasoning adopted in McLellan.
Key Takeaways on Washington DUI Firearm Rights
The Washington Supreme Court held that Washington’s temporary firearm prohibition for repeat DUI offenders does not violate the Second Amendment.
According to the court, the law fits within America’s historical tradition of regulating dangerous conduct, restricting firearm access in alcohol-related circumstances, and limiting firearm possession by certain categories of offenders.
As a result, individuals with multiple DUI convictions within seven years may lose firearm rights even if they have never been convicted of a violent crime.
Contact Blanford Law
If you have questions about firearm rights, DUI convictions, or constitutional challenges under Washington law, contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253-720-9304 for guidance on your legal matter.
Additional Resources
Washington’s Untraceable Firearms Law Explained
Washington has enacted strict regulations governing so-called “ghost guns” and other untraceable firearms. This article explains the requirements, restrictions, and penalties associated with possessing or manufacturing these firearms under state law.
https://blanfordlaw.com/washington-untraceable-firearms-law/
RCW 9.41.325: Undetectable and Untraceable Firearms
Learn how RCW 9.41.325 regulates undetectable and untraceable firearms in Washington and the criminal penalties that may apply for violations.
https://blanfordlaw.com/washington-rcw-9-41-325-undetectable-and-untraceable-firearms/
RCW 9.41.327 and Washington Firearm Regulations
This article examines RCW 9.41.327 and its role within Washington’s broader framework of firearm regulation and public safety laws.
https://blanfordlaw.com/washington-rcw-9-41-327/
State v. Drake: Important Washington Firearms Decision
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Drake addresses significant issues involving firearm possession and the interpretation of Washington’s gun laws.
https://blanfordlaw.com/state-v-drake-washington/
Washington Offender Scores and Criminal History
A defendant’s offender score can have a major impact on sentencing outcomes. This article explains how Washington courts calculate offender scores and discusses the Wysgoll decision.
https://blanfordlaw.com/offender-score-washington-wysgoll/