Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Ghost Guns and Rejects Anti-Abortion Initiative Challenge

On Thursday, April 18, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision to uphold the state ban on ghost guns, overturning a previous ruling that deemed the law too vague. The law, which was enacted in 2021, regulates firearm components without serial numbers. The Supreme Court's decision directly impacts gun manufacturer Polymer80 Inc., which had challenged the law, claiming that the terms used in the statute were not clearly defined, thus rendering it unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court deemed the language in the law to be readily understandable through ordinary usage and common understanding.

In its ruling, Chief Justice Lydia Stiglich highlighted that the statutes only regulate conduct involving incomplete firearms without serial numbers. The Court emphasized that terms such as "blank," "casting," and "machined body" are commonly understood within the industry. Furthermore, the Court referenced letters from Polymer80's legal counsel to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which included the terms "blank," "casting," and "machined," indicating their common understanding. Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who filed the appeal on behalf of the state, hailed the decision as a win for public safety and a practical measure to protect Nevadans from violent crime.

Setback to Anti-Abortion Activists

Aside from the ruling on ghost guns, the Nevada Supreme Court also handed a setback to anti-abortion activists regarding a voter initiative. The Court rejected a previous ruling by a Carson City judge, stating that the initiative's description was not misleading and that it fulfilled the requirement to address a single subject by encompassing abortion rights under the umbrella of reproductive health care.

Reproductive rights advocates applauded the decision, expressing confidence in a different and narrower initiative seeking to amend the state constitution. Lindsey Harmon, president of Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, welcomed the ruling as a recognition of the right to reproductive freedom, encompassing all aspects of a person's reproductive health care.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Parents and Children, a group opposing the voter initiative, expressed disappointment with the Court's decision, emphasizing concerns about broad and deceptive initiative proposals. Harmon's group has proceeded with a new ballot initiative, having gathered over 160,000 signatures, well surpassing the 102,000 required. The initiative aims to enshrine in the constitution the current protections under a 1990 law that guarantee access to abortion through 24 weeks of pregnancy, with provisions for later stages to protect the health of the pregnant person. The proposed measure will require approval in 2024 and 2026 to effect constitutional changes.