Firearm Offenses & Second Amendment Litigation

Firearm-related felony charges are among the most severe and politically charged cases in Washington. They carry mandatory prison time, long-term firearm prohibitions, and collateral consequences that affect employment, civil rights, and personal liberty. These cases also sit at the intersection of rapidly evolving Second Amendment law, requiring a defense attorney who not only understands the criminal statutes, but who is fluent in the constitutional principles that govern the right to bear arms.

Mr. Merchant has extensive experience defending individuals charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPFA) and felony offenses involving firearm enhancements. His firearm practice focuses on strategic litigation, advanced constitutional motions, and meticulous evaluation of whether the State can lawfully regulate or punish firearm conduct under the Second Amendment.

Few areas of criminal law are changing as quickly as firearm regulation. Mr. Merchant stays at the forefront of this shifting legal landscape—filing challenges that test whether Washington's firearm laws can survive the constitutional scrutiny imposed by the United States Supreme Court.

A Constitutional Approach to Firearm Defense

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court held—for the first time in our nation's history—that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense. The Court expanded this protection even further in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), emphasizing that the government's ability to regulate firearms is strictly limited and must be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Bruen fundamentally changed how courts evaluate firearm restrictions. Under its framework:

• Modern firearm laws are lawful only if the government can prove the law is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States.
• If the State cannot identify a historical analogue, the modern law is unconstitutional.
• The burden is on the government—not the defendant—to justify the regulation.

This standard applies to all firearm restrictions, including possession statutes, enhancements, disqualifications, and sentencing schemes.

Mr. Merchant rigorously litigates firearm cases under Bruen, challenging laws that cannot survive this historically grounded constitutional test. His litigation focuses on the reality that many Washington firearm laws—including enhancement statutes and categorical bans—have no meaningful historical foundation and are therefore unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's current doctrine.

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPFA)

Washington's UPFA statute is broad, severe, and often enforced without attention to constitutional limitations. Mr. Merchant represents individuals accused of:

• First Degree UPFA
• Second Degree UPFA
• Possession of a Stolen Firearm
• Possession of an Unlawful Firearm
• Felon in Possession of a Firearm

UPFA cases frequently turn on legal and constitutional issues that most defense attorneys do not litigate deeply. Mr. Merchant's defense includes:

1. Bruen Challenges to the UPFA Statute

Under Bruen, the government must show that disarming a particular category of people has a historical analogue rooted in the founding era. Many modern disqualification categories—including certain misdemeanors, orders, and conditions—lack historical support.

Mr. Merchant files challenges arguing:

• Washington's disqualification categories exceed constitutional limits.
• UPFA statutes cannot stand without a historically grounded tradition.
• Blanket bans are improper under the Second Amendment.

This litigation is evolving rapidly, and Mr. Merchant remains on the leading edge.

2. Knowledge-of-Disqualification Litigation

Recently, Mr. Merchant litigated the question of whether the State must prove that a defendant knew they were prohibited from possessing a firearm—a requirement rooted in federal law and due process.

Federal precedent holds that for serious firearm offenses, the government must prove knowledge of disqualification. Washington law has often ignored this requirement.

Mr. Merchant argued that:

• Due process demands proof of knowledge,
• State statutes cannot contradict federal constitutional requirements, and
• The absence of a knowledge element renders the statute defective.

This litigation continues to shape UPFA prosecutions statewide.

3. Due Process in Government Disarmament

The government may not disarm a person without affording meaningful due process.
Mr. Merchant challenges:

• invalid or expired no-contact orders,
• defective civil protection orders,
• inaccurate mental-health disqualifications,
• administrative errors in firearm rights restoration,
• and unlawful police seizures or "holds."

If the underlying disarmament was unconstitutional or void, UPFA cannot stand.

Firearm Enhancements

Firearm enhancements dramatically increase sentencing ranges—sometimes doubling or tripling the penalty. These enhancements are mandatory and consecutive, stripping judges of discretion.

But after Bruen, the validity of firearm enhancements is constitutionally questionable.

Mr. Merchant litigates that:

• mandatory firearm enhancements lack a founding-era analogue;
• punishment for mere possession during otherwise lawful conduct was historically unknown;
• enhancements violate the Second Amendment under Bruen's historical test,
• enhancements punish the exercise of a constitutional right,
• and enhancements violate due process by imposing automatic punishment without individualized findings.

This litigation goes beyond traditional sentencing arguments—it challenges the legality of enhancements at their core.

Challenging Searches, Seizures, and Evidence Collection

Firearm cases often rely on evidence obtained through questionable police conduct.
Mr. Merchant regularly challenges:

• warrantless searches of cars and homes,
• pretextual stops,
• unlawful pat-downs,
• searches exceeding the scope of warrants,
• digital searches of cell phones and devices,
• coerced or misleading interrogations,
• and police reliance on unreliable informants or hearsay.

Suppressing the firearm often results in dismissal of the entire case.

Creative, Constitutionally Anchored Defense Theories

As with all of Mr. Merchant's felony work, firearm cases require creativity and strategic thinking. He frequently develops defense theories that:

• expose gaps in the State's chain of custody,
• reveal inconsistencies in officer reports,
• show others had access to or control over the firearm,
• challenge assumptions about possession or dominion,
• highlight alternative explanations for observed conduct,
• or demonstrate that the firearm was never operable or possessed knowingly.

Even where the State believes the evidence is overwhelming, Mr. Merchant often finds a constitutional, factual, or narrative flaw that changes the trajectory of the case.

A Defense Grounded in the Constitution

Firearm statutes and sentencing schemes are evolving at unprecedented speed. Washington's statutes are under increasing scrutiny, and many are unlikely to survive under current Supreme Court doctrine.

Mr. Merchant's firearm-defense practice is built on:

• constitutional litigation under the Second Amendment,
• historical-tradition analysis under Bruen,
• due process challenges to disarmament and sentencing,
• suppression litigation under Article I, Section 7 and the Fourth Amendment,
• and trial advocacy designed to expose unreliable assumptions and shaky evidence.

For individuals accused of firearm-related felonies, the stakes could not be higher.
A defense rooted in constitutional command, creativity, and disciplined analysis is essential.

Mr. Merchant delivers exactly that.