RENO, Nevada – The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on ghost guns on Thursday, overturning a lower court’s ruling that supported a gun manufacturer’s argument that the 2021 law regulating firearm components without serial numbers it was too broad and unconstitutionally vague.
Separately, the court dealt a setback to anti-abortion activists in a fight over a ballot initiative that was no longer on the ballot in November, a decision that abortion rights advocates say nevertheless helps establish important legal guidelines. relating to general reproductive health care.
The gun law had already been struck down by Lyon County District Judge John Schlegelmilch, who ruled in favor of a legal challenge from Nevada-based gunmaker Polymer80 Inc., which said the statute was too vague.
Among other things, Polymer80 argued, terms such as “blank,” “cast,” and “machined body” were not defined, while “unfinished frame or receiver” did not specify what a “finished” frame or receiver is.
In upholding the law, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision that the language lawmakers approved and then-Gov. Steve Sisolak’s signature was “readily” understandable through common usage and common understanding.
“The statutes here regulate only conduct involving an object that is intended to become a firearm,” Judge Lydia Stiglich wrote in the ruling. “They prohibit acts involving incomplete firearms that do not have a printed serial number. ”
She noted in the ruling that “Polymer80’s own legal counsel had written letters to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that included the words ‘blank,’ ‘cast,’ and ‘machined’ in reference to its own products, showing that these terms are commonly understood.”
The fact that the terms are “generic and broad” does not make them vague, Stiglich added.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat who filed the appeal on behalf of the state in December 2021, said the ruling “is a victory for public safety and creates sensible and practical measures to protect Nevadans from violent crimes.” ”.
“The ‘ghost gun’ ban is one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we have seen pass through Carson City,” he said in a statement.
Polymer80’s legal counsel did not immediately respond to emails from The Associated Press seeking comment.
In Thursday’s other ruling, the high court rejected a Carson City judge’s ruling that the initiative’s description was misleading and violated requirements that it address a single issue by including the right to abortion under the umbrella of health care. reproductive health.
“The medical procedures considered in the initiative petition concern reproduction. Stating that they could not all be treated together because they are separate procedures is inappropriate,” the Supreme Court said. “Each medical procedure is related to human reproduction and is pertinent to each other and to the initiative’s sole objective of establishing the right to reproductive freedom.”
Abortion rights advocates welcomed the ruling, though they have already shifted their focus to a different, narrower initiative aimed at amending the state constitution and are confident it will come to a vote in November, after a judge has decided that it had met the legal requirements.
“Today’s decision is an unequivocal recognition of what we have always known to be true: the right to reproductive freedom includes all aspects of a person’s reproductive health care,” said Lindsey Harmon, president of Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, in a statement.
A lawyer representing a group fighting the ballot initiative, the Coalition for Parents and Children, said he expressed disappointment.
“The Court transformed the single-subject rule into a single-category rule, which will open the floodgates to broad and misleading initiative proposals like the one at issue in this case,” Jason Guinasso said in an email. “My clients will now focus on educating voters about why this proposal is a bad law and policy for Nevadans.”
Harmon said his group has gathered more than 160,000 signatures for the new ballot initiative — well above the 102,000 required by June 26 — and plans to submit them for validation that month. The measure would enshrine in the constitution current protections under a 1990 law that guarantee access to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, or later, to protect the health of the pregnant person.
Voters would need to approve it in 2024 and 2026 to change the constitution.
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
