Opinion ID: 2643378
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo. State v. Sieyes, 168 Wn.2d 276, 281,225 P.3d 995 (2010) (citing State v. Chavez, 163 Wn.2d 262,267, 180 P.3d 1250 (2008)). This court will presume a legislative enactment constitutional and, if possible, construe an enactment so as to render it constitutional. City of Seattle v. Montana, 129 Wn.2d 583, 589-90, 919 P.2d 1218 (1996). 1 A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, ifthe person does not qualify under subsection (1) ofthis section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm: . . . If the person is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a serious offense as defined in RCW 9.41.010. 3 State v. Jorgenson, No. 87448-4 It is unclear to us from the briefing whether Jorgenson contends RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iv) is facially unconstitutional or only as applied to him, but we treat this as an as-applied challenge. 2 See Wash. State Republican Party v. Pub. Disclosure Comm 'n, 141 Wn.2d 245,282 n.l4, 4 P.3d 808 (2000) (a facial challenge must be rejected if there are any circumstances where the statute can constitutionally be applied (citing In re Det. ofTuray, 139 Wn.2d 379, 417 n. 28, 986 P.2d 790 (1999))). A statute that is found unconstitutional as applied remains good law except in similar circumstances. City ofRedmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664,669,91 P.3d 875 (2004).