PA Bill Number: SB709
Title: In game or wildlife protection, further providing for the offense of unlawful taking and possession of protected birds and for endangered or ...
Description: In game or wildlife protection, further providing for the offense of unlawful taking and possession of protected birds and for endangered or .. ...
Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (171-30)
Last Action Date: Apr 15, 2024
FPC Daily 2A Legal Update :: 06/03/2021
In today's FPC legal update, we have filings from lawsuits challenging Rhode Island's stun gun ban and Montgomery County, Maryland's "ghost gun" ban.
Issue: Stun gun ban
Court: District of Rhode Island
Action: Reply and objection to cross-motion for summary judgment
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenging Rhode Island's ban on stun guns and Tasers filed a reply in support of their motion asking the judge to declare the ban unconstitutional. The reply also responds to the state's last filing, which argued that stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. The reply brief points out many of the state's strange claims, including that Tasers are actually legal in the state (despite no evidence that they are actually sold there) and that it's notable if there are no defensive uses of stun guns in Rhode Island (where they are currently banned). Another reply in this case is due on June 9th.
Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County
Issue: "Ghost guns"
Court: Maryland state court
Action: Complaint
A new lawsuit was filed today by a Maryland-based gun rights group called Maryland Shall Issue and others against a new Montgomery County law that regulates the possession and transfer of so-called "ghost guns," which includes guns without serial numbers, guns made using 3D printers, and even the computer code used to make them. Some of the things banned within the county under the new law include possession of "ghost guns" "within 100 yards of a place of public assembly," giving "a computer code or program to make a gun through a 3D printing process" to a minor, and the sale, transfer, possession, and transport of "a firearm created through a 3D printing process." The lawsuit argues that the provisions of the law are vague, unconstitutional, and preempted by state laws that regulate which local gun laws towns and cities can enforce. The county will now have an opportunity to respond to the lawsuit.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-daily-2a-legal-update-6-3-21
