Posted on 01/05/2022 4:36:29 AM PST by marktwain
The Nevada legislature passed and Governor Sisolak signed into law AB 286 on June 7, 2021. On June 22, Polymer80 filed a lawsuit challenging AB 286 as unconstitutionally vague, under the due process clause of the Nevada Constitution.
Both Polymer80 and the State of Nevada filed Motions for Summary Judgement, and opposition to the opponent’s Motion for Summary Judgement, in a timely manner.
AB 286 attempted to ban the possession, sale, or transport of an “unfinished frame or receiver” as defined in the bill. As anyone with ordinary intelligence can determine, the definition of something which is unfinished is problematic. When does a process start? At what point does it become “unfinished”? Does it start with molten metal, the combination of chemicals in a mold, or the first cut of a saw or turn of a drill?
Here is the definition of “Unfinished frame or receiver” as stated in AB 286:
9.“Unfinished frame or receiver” means a blank, a casting or a machined body that is intended to be turned into the frame or lower receiver of a firearm with additional machining and which has been formed or machined to the point at which most of the major machining operations have been completed to turn the blank, casting or machined body into a frame or lower receiver of a firearm even if the fire-control cavity area of the blank, casting or machined body is still completely solid and unmachined.
Both parties agreed to the basic facts in the case.
On December 10, 2021, the Third Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, issued Summary Judgement in favor of Polymer80,
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Yes, and in analogy, denying the ability for those who load/reload ammo should not be denied the ability to purchase pistol/rifle primers.
Congress shut off importing of such from Russia and evidently other places.
Last year, I was lucky and did buy 400 small pistol primers. And I looked hard for them.
A pistol or rifle is useless without ammo.
So the Justice system has to read the mind of the accused in order to determine the "intent" to make a firearm out of a chunk of metal or plastic. Unfortunately, rather than a clear statement on the applicability of the second amendment to the law, we get a ruling on the vagueness of the language, allowing the legislature and governor another try.
Yeah, you know the thing
This argument of “what could be” is similar to the state of compliant or non-compliant AR platforms here in California.
Is a bare AR lower received (with no moving parts) compliant or non-compliant? It “could be” built into a non-compliant configuration. It is in the mind of the beholder.
Above post not intended as a thread hijack.
The Judge talked a good bit about the difficulty of determining intent in his written opinion.
Thanks. Excellent decision: clearly written, complete, and correct on the law and the Nevada Constitution. I would also think many of the arguments made regarding due process also apply to Federal law.
After the Regulator war of 1770, the British hanged one of the gunsmiths in North Carolina.
People forget about the precursor to the American Revolution.
I have an old fifty year article I tore out of a GUNS AND AMMO magazine years ago.
It dealt with the problem of convicts making their own firearms behind prison walls.
I used to post it on FR, till Photobucket refused to allow me to post them.
# Here is a link to the decision.
Excellent. Thanks! Always good to have a link to the actual decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.