Court Opinion

ID: 9897896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:26:51.978044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:04.594160
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                   No. 84490-3-I
                      Respondent,
                                                   DIVISION ONE
               v.
                                                   PUBLISHED OPINION
 HOWARD LEE ROSS,

                      Appellant.

       MANN, J. — RCW 9.41.040(1) makes it a class B felony for a person previously

convicted of a serious offense to possess a firearm. Howard Ross was convicted of first

degree unlawful firearm possession under RCW 9.41.040(1) based on a prior conviction

for second degree burglary—a defined serious offense. Ross appeals and argues that

under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and New York State Rifle &

Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022), RCW

9.41.040 is unconstitutional as applied. We disagree and affirm.

                                             I

       Ross was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first

degree. A person “is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first
No. 84490-3-I/2

degree, if the person owns, accesses, has in the person’s custody, control or

possession, or receives any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not

guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense.” RCW

9.41.040(1)(a). Ross’s conviction was based on his previous 2010 conviction for

burglary in the second degree.

       Ross appeals.

                                              II

       Ross argues that, as applied to him, RCW 9.41.040(1) is unconstitutional

because the government cannot justify restricting the possession of firearms for those

with nonviolent felony convictions. We disagree.

       We review constitutional challenges de novo. City of Seattle v. Evans, 184

Wn.2d 856, 861-62, 366 P.3d 906 (2015). “We presume that statutes are constitutional

and place ‘the burden to show unconstitutionality . . . on the challenger.’” Evans, 184

Wn.2d at 861-62 (quoting In re Estate of Hambleton, 181 Wn.2d 802, 817, 335 P.3d 398

(2014)). An as-applied challenge to a statute’s constitutionality requires examination of

the statute in the specific circumstances of the case. See Fields v. Dep’t of Early

Learning, 193 Wn.2d 36, 46, 434 P.3d 999 (2019); see also City of Redmond v. Moore,

151 Wn.2d 664, 668-69, 91 P.3d 875 (2004) (as-applied challenges are “characterized

by a party’s allegation that application of the statute in the specific context of the party’s

actions or intended actions is unconstitutional”). Holding a statute unconstitutional as-

applied does not invalidate the statute, but prohibits its application in that specific

context and future similar contexts. Moore, 151 Wn.2d at 669.

                                           -2-
No. 84490-3-I/3

                                                       A

        The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[a] well regulated

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep

and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. CONST. amend. II. 1

        In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 573, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed.

2d 637 (2008), the Supreme Court considered whether the District of Columbia’s ban on

an individual’s right to possess handguns, and requirement that firearms in the home be

kept nonfunctional, violated the Second Amendment. After analyzing the language and

history of the Second Amendment, the Court held “that the Second Amendment

conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 595.

Accordingly, the District’s “ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second

Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home

operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” 554 U.S. at 635.

        The Court recognized, however, that “the right secured by the Second

Amendment is not unlimited.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. The Court identified several

longstanding prohibitions, including possession by felons:

        Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of
        the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
        taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
        firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
        firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
        laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
        arms.

        1 While Ross does not cite the Washington constitution, we note that it provides independent

individual protection of the right to bear arms, “the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.” W ASH. CONST. art. I, § 24.

                                                    -3-
No. 84490-3-I/4

Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27.

      Consistent with its holding and recognition of longstanding limitations, the

Court required the District to permit Heller to register his handgun and issue him

a license to carry it in the home, assuming that he was “not disqualified from the

exercise of Second Amendment rights.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.

      Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 741, 130 S.

Ct. 3030, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed Chicago’s

similar ban on handguns under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The

Court concluded “that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald, 561

U.S. at 791. In doing so, the Supreme Court again emphasized that the Second

Amendment had limits, including prohibiting felons from possession:

      We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such
      longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of
      firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of
      firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
      laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
      arms.’ We repeat those assurances here.

McDonald, 561 U.S. at 786 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27).

      Most recently in Bruen, the Supreme Court considered and struck down New

York’s regulatory licensing program that required applicants to prove that they had

“proper cause” to carry a handgun in public. 142 S. Ct. at 2122. The Court held:

      We recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the
      right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home
      for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that
      ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns
      publicly for their self-defense. We too agree and now hold, consistent with
      Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments

                                         -4-
No. 84490-3-I/5

       protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the
       home.

142 S. Ct. at 2122.

       The Court contrasted New York’s permissive “may issue” concealed carry

licensing regime with “‘shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-

carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without

granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need

or suitability.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2123-24. The Court explained that “shall issue”

regulations are not affected by the Court’s decision because those are designed to

ensure that those possessing firearms “are, in fact, law-abiding, responsible citizens.”

Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2138 n.9. It also explained that nothing in Bruen should be

interpreted to call into question the constitutionality of 43 states’ “shall issue” regimes.

Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2138 n.9.

       Relevant here, Bruen did not overrule, or cast doubt, on the Court’s recognition in

Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment did not preclude prohibitions on

felons possessing firearms. The six-Justice majority opinion fully embraced the earlier

decisions in Heller and McDonald that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect

the right of “ordinary, law-abiding citizens to possess a handgun in the home for self-

defense.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122 (emphasis added). Indeed, at least 11 times the

majority referenced the Second Amendment right of “law-abiding” citizens. Bruen, 142

S. Ct. at 2122, 2125, 2133, 2134, 2138, 2150, 2156. Of the six justices in the majority,

three wrote or joined in concurring opinions clarifying the scope of their decision.

Justice Alito emphasized that:

                                           -5-
No. 84490-3-I/6

       Today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like
       New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents
       from carrying a gun for [self-defense].

       That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully
       possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor
       does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may
       possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or
       McDonald . . . about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession
       or carrying of guns.

Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2157 (Alito, J., concurring).

       Similarly, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, confirmed the

prohibitions recognized in Heller and McDonald:

       as Heller and McDonald established and the Court today again explains,
       the Second Amendment “is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a
       regulatory blank check.” Ante, at 2133. Properly interpreted, the Second
       Amendment allows a “variety” of gun regulations. Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.
       As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion for the Court in Heller, and Justice
       Alito reiterated in relevant part in the principal opinion in McDonald:

              Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
              Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the
              19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
              explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
              weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
              whatever purpose. . . . [N]othing in our opinion should be
              taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
              possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws
              forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
              as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
              conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

                                          -6-
No. 84490-3-I/7

Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-

27 & n.26, McDonald, 561 U.S. at 786). 2

        Ross challenges RCW 9.41.040(1) which makes it illegal for a person convicted

of a serious office to possess a firearm:

        (1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of
        unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns,
        accesses, has in the person’s custody, control, or possession, or receives
        any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by
        reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense.

        (b) Unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree is a class B felony
        punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.

We hold that consistent with Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the Second Amendment

does not bar the state from prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons as it has

done in RCW 9.41.040(1). RCW 9.41.040(1) is facially constitutional.

                                                    B

        Recognizing that historically “the government could prohibit persons charged with

crimes like taking up arms against the country from possessing firearms,” Ross argues

that because his underlying crime of second degree burglary was nonviolent, we should

find RCW 9.41.040(1) unconstitutional as applied. We disagree for two reasons.

        First, Ross’s attempt to distinguish violent and nonviolent felons is of his own

construct. Neither Bruen nor Heller frame the analysis in terms of violent versus

nonviolent felons. Instead, both held that the Second Amendment protects the

individual right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” to possess firearms. Bruen, 142 S.

        2 In the dissent Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, explained that “[l]ike

Justice Kavanaugh, I understand the Court’s opinion today to cast no doubt on that aspect [prohibition on
the possession of firearms by felons] of Heller’s holding.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2189.

                                                 -7-
No. 84490-3-I/8

Ct. at 2131, Heller, 554 U.S. at 635 (emphasis added). Again, the Bruen majority

describes those who fall under the Second Amendment aegis as “law-abiding” citizens

at least 11 times. The Court found that New York’s licensing regime was

unconstitutional because “it prevent[ed] law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense

needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156

(emphasis added). Moreover, in setting forth the proper framework to assess

constitutionality under the Second Amendment, the Court explained that courts should

analyze how and why historically relevant regulations “burden a law-abiding citizen’s

right to armed self-defense.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133 (emphasis added).

       Similarly, both Heller and McDonald specifically recognized the “longstanding

prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons” as not violating the Second

Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626; McDonald, 561 U.S. at 786. Neither opinion

distinguished violent felons from nonviolent felons and Ross offers no authority in

support of such a distinction.

       A felon is “[s]omeone who has been convicted of a felony.” BLACK'S LAW

DICTIONARY 762 (11th ed. 2019). In Washington, a felony, under the unlawful

possession of firearms statute, is defined as “any felony offense under the laws of this

state or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense under the

laws of this state.” RCW 9.41.010(17). Burglary in the second degree is defined as a

class B felony. RCW 9A.52.030(2). Thus, Ross was convicted of a felony and as such

is not a “law-abiding” citizen. 3

       3 Ross is, however, able to petition to have his firearm rights restored under RCW 9.41.041(2)-

(4).

                                               -8-
No. 84490-3-I/9

        Second, the legislature has defined second degree burglary as a violent crime.

The prohibition on possession of firearms under RCW 9.41.040(1)(a) applies to any

person previously convicted of “any serious offense.” A “serious offense” is defined by

the same statute to include “[a]ny crime of violence.” RCW 9.41.010(42)(a). And a

“crime of violence” is defined to include burglary in the second degree. RCW

9.41.010(7)(a). When, as here, the language of the statute is unambiguous, we “must

give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent.” Dep’t of Ecology

v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Ross offers no

support for the proposition that the legislature did not intend to define burglary in the

second degree as a serious offense and crime of violence.

        Ross’s as-applied challenge to RCW 9.41.040(1) fails. 4

        We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

        4 Ross also makes a policy argument that limiting unlawful possession of a firearm to violent

offenses can reduce racial disparity. Again, the legislature has made it unlawful for those convicted of
“serious offenses” to possess firearms and has explicitly defined which crimes are “serious offenses.”
RCW 9.41.040(1), RCW 9.41.010(36). Policy arguments “are more properly addressed to the
Legislature, not to the courts.” Blomster v. Nordstrom, Inc., 103 Wn. App. 252, 258, 11 P.3d 883 (2000).

                                                -9-