Updates in "Ghost Gun" and Gun Range Zoning Cases in Today's FPC Daily 2A Legal Update


In today's FPC legal update, we have updates from a case challenging Nevada's ban on so-called "ghost guns" and a case challenging Howell Township, MI's zoning restrictions on gun ranges.

Palmer v. Sisolak

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

Court: District of Nevada

Action: State Defendants’ Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

In this lawsuit challenging Nevada's law ban on self-built firearms, the state filed a response to FPC's motion for preliminary injunction (which asked the court to halt the enforcement of the law while the case continues). In its response, the state argues that "[t]he Second Amendment’s core right is the possession of firearms for defense of hearth and home" and that the new law "does not violate the Second Amendment because it does not interfere with that core right." The state also argues that the Fifth Amendment is not violated by the law's provision requiring people to "sell or otherwise dispose of" the affected guns because "[j]ust as no compensation was due when alcohol and bump stocks were prohibited, no compensation is due here." A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 16th.

Oakland Tactical v. Howell Township

Issue: Gun range zoning

Court: Sixth Circuit

Action: Defendant-appellee’s brief on appeal

Howell Township, Michigan filed a brief today in an FPC-supported case challenging zoning restrictions imposed by the Township that prohibit shooting ranges for long guns. The brief argues that this case is merely "a zoning dispute," and that "the Second Amendment protection does not encompass a right to use or construct a commercial, outdoor, 1,000-yard shooting range." The brief also argues that "the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to a firearm shop or shooting range in whatever location they so desire, even if that location is more convenient than current alternatives." The plaintiffs will now have an opportunity to respond to the Township's brief before the court makes a decision in this case.