On June 12, 2026, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a significant ruling that anyone with a DUI conviction — or facing one — needs to understand. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the court held that two DUI convictions within a seven-year period is enough to permanently strip a person of their Second Amendment right to own or possess a firearm, at least under state law.
The case is McLellan and Holloway v. Brown, No. 103799-6, and its consequences reach well beyond the two men whose names are on it.
What the Case Was About
Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway both had multiple DUI convictions within seven years. When they applied for concealed pistol licenses, the state denied them under RCW 9.41.040 — a 2023 statute that categorically prohibits firearm possession by “recidivist drunk drivers.”
They challenged that law in Spokane County Superior Court, arguing that a blanket firearms ban — with no individualized finding that either of them posed a danger involving weapons — violated the Second Amendment. The trial court agreed that factual development was needed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi, which required some showing of credible threat to public safety before disarming someone.
The state appealed. Washington’s Supreme Court reversed the trial court.
What the Court Decided
Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Steven González concluded that the Legislature acted within constitutional bounds when it passed the 2023 law. The majority held that because the prohibition follows criminal convictions — not mere accusations — the state does not need to make an individualized dangerousness finding for each person. The historical tradition of disarming those who have demonstrated a pattern of reckless, dangerous behavior, the majority reasoned, is broad enough to include repeat drunk drivers.
The ruling means that under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i)(D), any Washingtonian convicted of a second qualifying DUI offense within seven years is now prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
It’s worth noting that “DUI-related prior offenses” under the statute are defined broadly — they include physical control while under the influence, vehicular homicide, reckless driving and negligent driving when amended from an original DUI charge, and several other vehicle offenses involving alcohol or drugs, even if later amended to remove mention of alcohol or drugs or if prosecution was deferred.
The Dissent
Four justices — a substantial minority — did not agree. The 21-page dissent called the majority’s ruling a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenters argued that Rahimi required more: that before a person can be stripped of a fundamental constitutional right, there must be some connection between that person’s conduct and a danger involving firearms. Drunk driving, however dangerous, doesn’t supply that connection on its own.
That disagreement matters. It signals that this ruling is legally contested and may eventually face further challenge, potentially at the federal level.
How Rights Can Be Restored
The prohibition imposed by this statute is not necessarily permanent. Under the law, a person disarmed by a second DUI conviction may petition for restoration of firearm rights after five consecutive years of law-abiding behavior in the community.
That restoration process is a separate legal proceeding with its own requirements, and it is not automatic. If you are in this situation and want to understand your options, I handle firearm rights restoration cases in Washington.
What This Means If You Have a DUI — or Are Facing One
If you already have one DUI conviction in Washington and you pick up a second within seven years, you are looking at more than license consequences and possible jail time. You are looking at the loss of your right to own or carry a firearm, with no path back for at least five years.
That’s a serious collateral consequence that most people don’t think about when they’re sitting across from a prosecutor trying to resolve a case. It is exactly the kind of thing your attorney should be factoring into any plea discussions.
If you have a pending DUI charge and firearms rights matter to you, that conversation needs to happen early — before any resolution is reached. Prior DUI history, the definition of “prior offenses” under RCW 46.61.5055, and how a current charge is resolved can all affect whether the firearm prohibition attaches.
Where This Law May Go
This was a 5-4 decision. One of the five majority justices, Barbara Madsen, has since retired. The legal tension between this ruling and Rahimi‘s individualized-threat framework is real. It is possible this statute faces additional litigation — in Washington courts or in federal court — as Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to develop after Bruen and Rahimi.
For now, though, the law is what it is, and people in Washington need to plan around it.
Questions About Your Case?
If you are dealing with a DUI charge in Clark County or Southwest Washington, or if you have a prior conviction and want to understand how this ruling affects you, feel free to reach out. I practice criminal defense and firearms law and am happy to talk through your situation.