Updates in 3D-Printing, “Ghost Gun,” and School Carry Cases in Today’s FPC Daily 2A Legal Update
In today’s FPC legal update, we have updates from a cases involving 3D-printed gun files, so-called “ghost guns,” and schools that want to allow employees to carry guns.
Defense Distributed v. Grewal
Issue: 3D-printed guns/files
Court: Fifth Circuit
In yesterday’s legal update, we discussed the reply filed by the plaintiffs in this case, which asked the court to enjoin New Jersey’s law banning 3D-printed gun files. Today, the court decided to stay the district court’s decision that transferred some of the claims in the lawsuit from Texas to New Jersey, which means all of the lawsuit’s claims will stay in Texas while the court decides how to rule on the various pending issues and motions. In addition, the court scheduled oral arguments for the week of August 2nd, with Judge Jones noting that “the potential impact of this litigation on core First Amendment rights renders it even more important for this court thoughtfully to consider the issues before us.”
DC v. Polymer80
Issue: “Ghost guns”
Court: Washington DC Local Court
Action: Order denying motion to dismiss
A judge denied a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit that was filed by Washington DC against Polymer80, which will allow the case to continue. The district’s lawsuit claims that the company is liable for allegedly advertising and selling 80% products to consumers in Washington DC, which the district says are illegal to possess without being registered. In denying the motion, the judge said that the company has enough connections to Washington DC (through its website and sales) to prevent the lawsuit from being dismissed at this stage.
Gabbard v. Madison Board of Education
Issue: Carry in schools
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
In this lawsuit, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that a Cleveland-area high school cannot allow its employees to be armed unless they either complete peace officer training or have 20 years of experience as a peace officer. If those requirements seem specific, it’s because they come from an Ohio law that requires them when a school employs “a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty.” Despite previous opinions from the Ohio Attorney General (which said that the training is only necessary for people employed as security personnel), the court found that those requirements apply to the people the school allowed to be armed. As a result, those employees will either need to receive the required training, or the state legislature will need to change the law’s requirements.