Will the Washington state assault weapons ban be struck down?

HB 1240 has been delivered to the governor to be signed and will likely be signed into law by the governor soon. Throughout the legislative process, many legislators have insisted that it is a waste of time because it is clearly unconstitutional.

Will the courts agree with these legislators?

Market will resolve yes if the court rules the law unconstitutional. If only part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, but enough of the law remains that an AR-15 is not legally purchasable within Washington, I will not consider the law to have been struck down.

This market will resolve No if either no challenge is brought to the law by the end of this year or if after all appeals are exhausted (either after a Supreme Court decision has been made, the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, or if the decision by a lower court is not appealed to the Supreme Court) enough of the law remains in place that an AR-15 is not legally purchasable within Washington.

In the unlikely case that the Governor vetos the bill or weakens it enought to allow an AR-15 to be purchased in WA, market will resolve N/A.

If a challenge is brought but not resolved by the end of the year, I'll extend the closing date of this market.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
predicts NO

I think the closing date should be extended- there are still numerous challenges pending in court, Such as Banta v. Ferguson, Hartford v. Ferguson, and Guardian Arms v. Inslee.

@TiredCliche Ok! Thank you for that information.
Per the creators criteria, I will re-open and extend.

@PatrickAupperle Can you resolve this yet? Thanks!

Thank you to everyone who participated. I'm on vacation out of the country right at the moment, so I'll do the research and resolve/extend this market based on the state of the law at the end of 2023 when I get back. My impression at the moment without looking into it much is that this should resolve "No", but I'm happy to see any evidence on this that anyone wants to provide.

sold Ṁ67 of NO

I'd suggest amending "purchasable in Washington" to "legally purchasable in Washington".

prohibition is (almost) never 100 percent effective.

@RobertCousineau Fair point. That's definitely what I meant, but it's definitely best to be clear. Updating it now

More related questions