A federal judge for the District of Nevada ruled this week against a gun-rights group that had filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on so-called “ghost guns.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition sued the state in June of this year following the passage of Assembly Bill 286, which bans the purchase, possession, manufacture, or reception of an “unfinished frame or receiver.” The FPC argued that the law violates both the Second Amendment and the Constitution’s Takings Clause because it amounts to a “confiscatory ban.”
Obama-appointee District Judge Mirando Du rejected both elements of the FPC suit. She argued that because Nevada residents can purchase serialized firearms, and they have the opportunity to sell their now-banned receivers, the bill does not violate either the Second or Fifth Amendments.
SEE ALSO: Democrats Propose Omnibus Gun Ban Bill Targeting ‘Ghost Guns,’ Background Checks
“Because AB 286 targets only unserialized firearms that are not within a categorical exception, that bypass background checks by virtue of self-assembly, and that are untraceable without a serial number, the Court finds that AB 286 is a reasonable fit for achieving the government’s objectives of decreasing the threat that unserialized firearms pose to public safety and preserving law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms related to violent crimes,” Mirando said.
“While the Court is sympathetic to the economic loss Plaintiffs assert,” she continued, “it is not clear based on the record the extent or certainty of that economic loss,” the order states. “Because AB 286 provides an approximate 10-month period for persons to sell unserialized firearms and constituent parts to firearms importers, manufacturers, or licensed dealers beginning June 7, 2021, the possibility of recouping a potential economic loss was — and remains as of the date of this order — possible.”
SEE ALSO: Nevada Judge Allows Suit Alleging AR-15s Should be Considered Machine Guns
In a statement, FPC called the decision “misguided” and said they may decide to appeal. “Today’s order is wrong as a matter of law and reduces the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms to a mere privilege,” the organization said. “FPC’s appellate counsel are reviewing this horribly flawed order and are authorized [to] take any and all appropriate actions to protect the Second Amendment rights of Nevada residents.”
SEE ALSO: 18 Attorneys General Call on DOJ to Close ‘Ghost Gun Loophole’
Nevada, like other states that have gone after “ghost guns,” wrote the law to target products like those sold by Polymer80. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has held for years that these “80-percent” receivers do not constitute firearms because they have not reached a stage of manufacture necessary to be used in a firearm.
In the last few years, however, the ATF has reversed course. As the behest of President Joe Biden, they are currently considering a rule in line with Nevada’s law: any product that can be “readily” converted into a receiver would count as a “firearm.” We’ve called on our readers to leave comments on this new rule, which you can read more about here.
The Nevada “ghost gun” ban passed on strict party-line votes in both the Senate and the Assembly.
Ex Post Facto = Retroactive laws: During Colonial Times, the British would arrest people for breaking existing laws that would amount to what we call today a misdemeanor. While they sat in jail for this petty crime, officials would draw up a list of offences committed by the individual that were not yet illegal, have the local magistrate pass laws to prohibit such activities, then charge the offender with crimes that were not yet illegal at the time they were committed. This was a hallmark of British Tyranny.
Where and Why is ex post facto law prohibited by the Constitution?
They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
In other words, the US Constitution prohibits any law from affecting current ownership or previous purchases of anything, for any reason. Constitutional laws, or laws allowed by the Constitution, can only affect future acquisitions, behaviors and/or purchases.
You had better check again you can’t sell a home made firearm unless you pay a $200 tax. No, you don’t pay for your own use but you must pay and serialize if you sell as the “judge” suggests.
You do not have to pay anything to ATF to sell your ghost gun that you made for your own use. You MUST serialize and place manufacturer info on the frame. It only requires a tax stamp if it falls under NFA
But you can’t sell a home made firearm without first applying to the ATF and paying a $200.00 fee so there is no way to sell the firearm without a severe monetary loss. Not to mention violation of ex post facto, which it seems the courts have recently decided to ignore.
You do not have to pay anything to ATF to sell your ghost gun that you made for your own use. You MUST serialize and place manufacturer info on the frame. It only requires a tax stamp if it falls under NFA
Well, she will be overturned by the Circuit Court of Appeals, for upholding a state law on the basis of abrogating a federal law by complying with the state law.
Federal gun law says that home made firearms may not be sold to others outside the maker’s family.
The court’s decision is based on violation of that federal law in order to comply with state law.
Where did SHE go to law school?
NO, title 18 has NO language like that ! What it states is that it is not being made for sale at the time of manufacture BY you for YOU.
You MAY sell it to whomever you choose down the road, as long as they are not prohibited, it does not violate any state law, and you have serialized the firearm like any manufacturer would have to do. You do NOT have to pay a $200 fee to ATF as others have suggested either. As long s you are not making them with the intent to sell them, that WOULD require a FFL manufacturing license. If you made one, and later on you either dont want it, or need to dispose of it legally, you serialize it and sell it to non prohibited person, or FFL dealer (depending on state rules). New rules state that a FFL must serialize it before it can be accepted into his books.
To gun grabbers, any firearm law that doesnt take guns from the law abiding is a “loophole.”