State High Court Upholds Gun Restrictions For Repeat DUI Offenders

The Washington Supreme Court ruled last week in a closely divided decision that the state can temporarily restrict firearm rights for people convicted of multiple Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses within seven years.

The 5-4 ruling upheld a 2023 state law challenged by two Spokane County men who argued the restriction violated the Second Amendment. The case could have implications across eastern Washington, including Stevens and Ferry counties, where concealed pistol licenses and firearm ownership rights are common issues for local residents. Under the law, people convicted of two qualifying DUI-related offenses within a seven-year period can be barred from possessing firearms and obtaining a concealed pistol license.

The restriction applies when at least one of the offenses occurred after the law took effect in July 2023. The law also includes other offenses, such as domestic violence and stalking. Those barred under the statute may later petition a court to restore their rights if they go five years without another disqualifying offense. The lawsuit was filed by Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway in Spokane County Superior Court.

According to court records, McLellan had three DUI convictions within seven years, while Holloway had two. In the majority opinion, Justice Steven González wrote that the Legislature acted within constitutional limits by temporarily disarming repeat drunk drivers. The court found that the law fit within the nation’s historical tradition of limiting firearm access for people convicted of serious crimes or those whose conduct shows a heightened risk of dangerous misuse.

The majority also rejected the argument that the state must hold a separate individualized hearing to prove each repeat DUI offender poses a specific risk of violent crime before applying the restriction. The case was shaped in part by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld firearm restrictions for people found by a court to pose a credible threat to another person’s safety.

Attorneys for the state argued repeat DUI convictions show a pattern of dangerous, reckless conduct involving alcohol, which the Legislature could reasonably consider when regulating firearm access.

Attorneys for McLellan and Holloway argued the state was relying on broad assumptions about future risk rather than proof that either man would misuse a gun.

In dissent, Justice G. Helen Whitener wrote that the state was taking away a constitutional right based on the possibility that someone might commit a violent act later.