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


In today's FPC legal update, we have updates in cases involving so-called "assault weapons" and "ghost guns".

Baystate Firearms v. Healey

Issue: Assault weapons ban

Court: Massachusetts state court

Action: Opinion

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs challenged the Massachusetts Attorney General's "enforcement notice" that said what properties would make a gun an "assault weapon" in the state, saying that it was not instituted according to the process required in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The judge disagreed however, ruling that the notice is not considered a regulation, and therefore did not have to go through the process required in the APA. Appeals from this court would go to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

DC v. Polymer80

Issue: "Ghost guns"

Court: Washington DC local court

Action: Motion for reconsideration

Previously in this lawsuit, the judge denied Polymer80's motion to dismiss, which allowed the lawsuit to continue. This week, the company filed a motion for reconsideration, which asks the court to change its prior ruling. The motion argues that Polymer80 does not have enough contact with the district for it to be sued there, and that there is no evidence that the company was directing its products there. Washington DC will now have an opportunity to respond to the motion before the judge makes a decision.

Does v. Suffolk County

Issue: Assault weapons ban

Court: Second Circuit

Action: Reply in support of motion for preliminary injunction

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that Suffolk County is asking them to turn in their CT4-2A firearms despite them being legal in New York. The plaintiffs filed a reply brief today in response to the county's brief, arguing that "[t]he County has still not committed to identifying which section of the Penal Law the CT4-2A violates," and that "[b]ecause the plaintiffs have not surrendered, and are not going to surrender, their lawfully purchased and owned property, they face imminent arrest..." The court will now decide if it should grant the motion, which would stop the county from confiscating any of the affected guns while the case continues.