SISOLAK SUED OVER GHOST GUN LAW

June 13, 2021

So called “Ghost Guns” are the lower half of pistols that are less than 80% finished. In other wards, it’s a piece of plastic or metal that the buyer must finish themselves. This includes, milling the rest of the plastic or metal frame, installing the trigger assembly and barrel. Not an easy task for the average Joe. Under federal law, any lower less than 80% finished is not considered a firearm. So they cannot be regulated as a firearm. The manufactures of 80% guns must receive a letter from the ATF certifying that their products are less than 80% complete and comply with the law.

As reported in the Washington Gazette:

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), just one week after winning a historic victory in a post-trial ruling overturning California’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons,” has filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Nevada’s unconstitutional statutes enacted in Assembly Bill 286 (AB 286). The bill establishes a new, confiscatory ban on all unserialized, self-manufactured firearms in the state, which FPC argues violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed AB 286 into law four days ago. The law “radically expands the State of Nevada’s statutes to unconstitutionally and categorically ban, under pain of severe criminal sanctions, the possession, receipt, manufacturing, and sales” of Non-Firearm Objects (“NFOs”) that the State classifies as “unfinished frames or receivers,” while explicitly banning the possession of both new and previously-owned self-manufactured firearms.

According to the FPC’s complaint, Nevada’s ban is unconstitutional because “the government cannot narrow the channels for exercising the right to keep and bear arms by limiting one’s access to the essential instruments of that right to limited, government-approved manufacturers of firearms and firearm precursor materials.” The complaint further states, “Nevada’s Ban imposes a blanket prohibition against a broad class of protected arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes by ordinary law-abiding citizens like the Plaintiffs.”

Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations, said in a statement:

Nevada’s broad ban on the possession and construction of constitutionally protected firearms and precursor materials violates Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights and unlawfully deprives them of their property, in violation of the Constitution. In order for a law-abiding individual to exercise their Second Amendment rights, they must have the ability to possess firearms, including those they build themselves. As our complaint explains, the right to self-build one’s own arms has been enjoyed, and at times absolutely necessary, since the founding of our country. We will aggressively litigate this action and seek an injunction to prevent this law from depriving individuals of their rights and property.

The FPC has also filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts’ Attorney General alleging their Unconstitutional ban on handguns. The FPC’s complaint alleges the State’s new laws and regulations “effectively operat[e] as a bar to the exercise of the fundamental right to bear protected arms,” which “violate[s] Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” The complaint further states that “some of Massachusetts’ ‘safety’ requirements, such as the mandated 10-lb. trigger pull… make handguns so outfitted more difficult to operate effectively and thus more difficult to operate safely.”