Update in Nevada "Ghost Gun" Case in Today's FPC Daily 2A Legal Update


In today's FPC legal update, we have an update from our lawsuit challenging Nevada's ban on self-built firearms and precursor parts.

Palmer v. Sisolak

Issue: Federal Second Amendment constitutional challenge to Nevada's ban on self-built firearms, precursor parts

Court: District of Nevada

Action: Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of Joseph G.S. Greenlee; Declaration of Joseph Ostini

In this lawsuit challenging Nevada's ban on self-built firearms and precursor parts, we filed a reply in support of our motion for a preliminary injunction (which asks the court to prevent the enforcement of the law while the case continues). The reply argues that Nevada is "simply mischaracteriz[ing] Plaintiffs’ compliance with the applicable laws as ‘exploitation’ of a ‘loophole’ because their lawful conduct resulted in outcomes the State now dislikes," and that "building of one’s own arms for lawful purposes has been recognized since the nation’s founding as a time-honored constitutionally protected activity, long popular among many Americans—far longer than any of the few regulations on self-manufacturing arms have ever existed."

The reply also notes how extreme Nevada's ban is, saying that "a lawfully self-manufactured gun in California that does bear a State-issued serial number obtained after an applicant completes a State-provided background check is still illegal to possess under Nevada’s Ban, even though, as a marked gun, it is not any kind of 'ghost.'"In addition, the filing was accompanied by a declaration from Joseph Greenlee that detailes the history of firearm self-manufacturing in the United States, noting that "many firearm makers intentionally omitted any markings that would suggest who built the firearm" during the Revolutionary War "for the gunsmiths of that troubled time had no desire to invite British reprisals, as they would if it were known that they were furnishing arms to the colonists."

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 16th.