Updates in "Ghost Gun," Preemption, and Other Cases in Today's FPC Daily 2A Legal Update

8/10/21

In today's FPC legal update, we have updates from cases involving so-called "ghost guns," preemption, and advertising.

Palmer v. Sisolak

Issue: "Ghost guns"

Court: District of Nevada

Action: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

In this lawsuit challenging Nevada's ban on self-built firearms and precursor parts, the plaintiffs filed a response to the state's motion to dismiss, which asked the court to end the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that the case should be allowed to continue, saying that the lawsuit "details the extraordinary impacts of the prohibitions imposed by AB 286’s Ban, the full extent of which State Defendants essentially concede in their motion," and that the law "still necessarily fails any form of heightened scrutiny for a clear absence of the required tailoring—much less any tailoring at all." The defendants will now have an opportunity to file a reply in support of their motion before the judge makes a ruling on it.

Christopher v Ramsey County

Issue: Preemption

Court: Minnesota State Court

Action: Complaint

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the Minnesota State Fair is prohibiting carry permit holders from having firearms at the event, which violates the state's preemption law. They also filed a motion for a temporary injunction, which asks the court to prevent the fair from banning guns while the case continues. The defendants will now have an opportunity to respond to the lawsuit.

Smith & Wesson v. Bruck

Issue: Advertising

Court: Third Circuit

Action: Emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal

Today, Smith & Wesson (S&W) asked the Third Circuit for a temporary stay in its lawsuit over a New Jersey subpoena for info on the company's advertising. The Third Circuit responded by denying the motion, but it set a timetable for S&W to file an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. S&W filed that motion today, which argues that the state's subpoena violates the company's First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights, and that the court should stop the state from enforcing it while the lawsuit continues. New Jersey's response to today's motion is due in August 17th.