Nevada Supreme Court Upholds State Ban on Ghost Guns

On Thursday, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision that had supported a gun manufacturer’s contention that the 2021 statute governing weapon components without serial numbers was too general and unconstitutionally nebulous and so sustained the state’s prohibition on ghost firearms.

In a separate matter, the court ruled against anti-abortion activists in a case involving a ballot initiative that was never going to be on the November ballot anyhow. However, those who support abortion rights argue that this decision nonetheless helps to set critical legal guidelines for reproductive health care in general.

Lyon County District Judge John Schlegelmilch had overturned the gun ban earlier, siding with a court challenge brought by Polymer80 Inc., a gun manufacturer in Nevada, who argued that the regulation was too broad.

Polymer80 claimed that some phrases were vague: 

-unfinished frame or receiver



-machined body

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the act, stating that the wording passed by legislators and signed by then-Gov. Steve Sisolak could be “readily” understood via everyday use and comprehension.

In the finding, he noted that Polymer80’s lawyers had written letters to the ATF using the same words to refer to its own products, showing that these terms are commonly understood.

Although the words were “generic and broad,” Stiglich emphasized, it did not render them nebulous.

Regarding abortion, Thursday saw the high court overturn a lower court’s determination that the initiative’s language was deceptive and that it failed to meet the criteria for a single issue by attempting to include reproductive health care and abortion rights simultaneously.

The decision was welcomed by those who support abortion rights even though their attention has already turned to a more specific effort. This initiative aims to modify the state constitution, and its proponents are sure it will be included on the November ballot due to a judge’s ruling that it meets the necessary legal requirements. A coalition of parents and children lawyers defending their clients in their battle against the voter proposal was disappointed.

Harmon said that her organization plans to submit the new ballot initiative’s signatures for validation that month, having collected over 160,000 signatures, far more than the 102,000 needed by June 26. This proposal would formalize existing constitutional safeguards for abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy or until the mother’s health is jeopardized, as established by a statute passed in 1990.

To amend the constitution, voters must accept it in 2024 and again in 2026.