The state of Washington, by and large, has some of the least restrictive firearms laws in the country. (Mayor Nickles' recent assclownery notwithstanding.) So it wouldn't seem to be a logical target for post-Heller litigation.
And, really, it isn't. Not immediately, anyway.
First, the incorporation issue has to be dealt with. The suits recently filed against Chicago and San Francisco are logical avenues for this. Given the leanings of the Circuit Courts that serve those cities, I would fully expect any challenge there to have to go the distance to SCOTUS for a favorable decision.
A logical move after incorporation would be to go after governments that place massive obstacles of paperwork and bureaucracy in the way of a citizen's right to own a gun. The obvious target here would be NYC.
The challenge to WA's gun laws would come much later. Because that challenge will be one that stands a good chance of violating Say Uncle's stricture against 'scaring the white people.' (Although, truth be told, Seattle's liberal palefaces are pretty much scared of everything anyway.)
You see, WA bans all possession of machineguns.* And Heller would seem to read that blanket bans on any kind of firearm aren't allowed. Actually, I could see going after WA's total ban on possession as a useful precursor to going after the federal Hughes Amendment's ban on new machineguns for civilians.
*MGs were legal in WA from 1991-1994, and MGs that were registered during those years are grandfathered. So the ban isn't absolute, but close enough.
Hey Mama, Hey Mama Have You Heard...
I done jumped from a big iron bird.
From a C-130 going 130 knots over Sicily DZ, to be exactly.
I can't say I came away unharmed, but since I last jumped almost 8 years, ago, I'm happy that I was able to walk away (biggest thing) with no broken bones, sprains, or dislocations.