Do minors have a constitutional right to possess guns?
Argument recap: State v. Sieyes, No. 82154-2.
A fascinating gun rights case was argued today before the Supreme Court of Washington involving a tangle of state and federal issues. In 2007, Christopher Sieyes, a 17 year old, was charged and convicted with unlawful possession of a firearm. State law (RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii)) prohibits minors from possessing firearms (with certain exceptions). While the case was on appeal to the Court of Appeals (Div. II), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down D.C.’s handgun prohibition. The Court of Appeals asked the litigants in Sieyes to supply additional briefing to address Heller, and then the court transferred the case to the state Supreme Court.
One of the major unanswered questions in Heller is relevant here—whether the Second Amendment applies to states. Since Heller, several federal circuits have ruled on this issue. The Second and Seventh Circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply against individual states, while the Ninth Circuit says it does. This circuit split (plus the specific issue involved) all but guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will address this issue its next term.
Additionally, there’s the question of the Washington Constitution, which says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired . . . .” (Art. I, Sec. 24). In the past the state Supreme Court has upheld “reasonable regulation” of this right, generally upholding restrictions that are necessary to uphold public safety, health, and general welfare. The question today is whether, in light of Heller’s endorsement of the individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court should apply a stricter standard of review to any regulations that impair gun rights. (More after the jump.)
Thomas E. Weaver argued for Mr. Sieyes, and he suggested that the court could avoid the constitutional question by simply determining that the conviction for possession was not supported by sufficient evidence. Given the court’s questions for the next hour, this doesn’t appear likely. (Justice Owens certainly held this view, saying: “I don’t know how you can avoid [the constitutional issue] in this case, really.”) Justice Charles Johnson suggested that an unconstitutional search perhaps occurred, though this issue was not raised by the parties. Justice Sanders inquired about the appropriate test for determining the constitutionality of the statute, asking, for example, whether it would be constitutional to prohibit a 3-year-old from possessing a gun.
The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, and the association’s attorney, Neil M. Fox, was permitted argument time, which is very rare for amicus parties. Mr. Fox argued that the Second Amendment applies to the states, submitting as supporting evidence Attorney General Rob McKenna’s amicus brief in Heller which advanced this argument. Mr. Fox also argued that strict scrutiny should apply to any restrictions on firearm possession or ownership. (Strict scrutiny mandates that a law cannot survive unless it advances a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to accomplish its purposes.)
Todd Dowell of the Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office represented the state. Given the State of Washington’s brief in Heller, Chief Justice Alexander asked Mr. Dowell about the state’s position today on whether the Second Amendment applies to the state. Despite several repetitions of the question Mr. Dowell declined to embrace or reject this position.
