Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court declined to determine the applicable level of scrutiny and held that the defendant had not shown, on the record presented, that Washington’s restrictions on firearm possession by minors violated either the federal or state constitutional right to bear arms. The case was remanded for proceedings on the remaining issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms against state interference through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Whether RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii), which restricts firearm possession by persons under 18 subject to statutory exceptions, violates the Second Amendment.
- Whether RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) violates article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution.
Holdings
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Sieyes failed to demonstrate on the record that RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) infringes the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
- Article I, section 24 clearly protects an individual right to bear arms, but the court declined to decide whether it provides greater protection against firearm restrictions for 17-year-olds because the parties had not adequately briefed the relevant state-constitutional analysis.
Key quotations
“We hold the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause; however, Sieyes fails to demonstrate on this record that RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) infringes on his right to bear arms under either constitution.” (at 281)
“Pursuant to Duncan the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms from state interference through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (at 291)
“Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.” (at 296)
Factual background
A Kitsap County deputy stopped a vehicle for speeding and observed 17-year-old Christopher Sieyes make a furtive movement toward the front passenger floorboard. After Sieyes exited the vehicle, the deputy found a loaded .380 semiautomatic handgun under Sieyes's seat that was accessible to him but not to the other passengers. The juvenile trial court found him guilty of second degree unlawful possession of a firearm because he constructively possessed the weapon and did not qualify for a statutory exception.
Procedural history
Sieyes was convicted in juvenile court of second degree unlawful possession of a firearm after officers found a loaded handgun under his seat in a vehicle. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the knowing-possession finding, the allocation of proof concerning statutory exceptions, and the constitutionality of the firearm-possession restriction for minors. The Court of Appeals requested supplemental briefing after Heller, and the Washington Supreme Court transferred the case for review of the constitutional issue.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the remaining issues, including the finding concerning firearm accessibility, evidence of constructive possession, and the existence or absence of exceptions under RCW 9.41.042.