Jump to content

Lawsuit Challenge of "Ghost gun" ban?


Molly B.
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...
On 10/24/2022 at 7:54 PM, RedBarchetta said:

Have any willing plaintiffs been found for a court challenge? 

 

I would guess there is a lot of plaintiffs right now, but I doubt it's a priority case topic at this moment, there are bigger fish to fry under the 'new' Bruen test that already have a foothold and can help establish Bruen precedent in the Illinois Courts so a case like this could theoretically be ended in a lower court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2022 at 5:01 PM, Flynn said:

 

I would guess there is a lot of plaintiffs right now, but I doubt it's a priority case topic at this moment, there are bigger fish to fry under the 'new' Bruen test that already have a foothold and can help establish Bruen precedent in the Illinois Courts so a case like this could theoretically be ended in a lower court.

Agreed, this request came out right before Bruen, and once that hit, priorities probably shifted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/4/2023 at 11:47 PM, Molly B. said:

Do we have anyone who does not have a "ghost gun"but would if they had not been banned in Illinois?

 

I do, the law really put a pause on my plan to 3D print a Glock style frame, I had planned to try a few of the newer less brittle resins vs the filaments printing that most people use and see how that panned out as a proof of concept, the ban put that on indefinite hold due to my current Illinois residency.

 

In regards to 3D printing and making your own, the law really complicates the discussion as IMO it's ambiguous as to when it needs to be serialized, since a 3D printed frame once printed is nearly complete upon completion of the print, from the way I read the law it appears that a half printed hunk of plastic that is just a hunk of half printed plastic and not even fully printed to resemble a firearm needs to be serialize at some point in the middle of the printing process, before it's even a functional gun part or complete print, let alone assembled or a single test fire.  The law would imply as soon as it's done printing it could be argued as being readily completed and thus past the point of the serial requirement that dictates it be serialize prior to that point something that for all intents is unachievable due to the nature of 3D printing being a single step addition manufacturing process that produces a frame that only needs minor cleanup before assembly...

 

Quote

(e) Any firearm or unfinished frame or receiver manufactured using a three-dimensional printer must also be serialized in accordance with the requirements of subsection
(f) within 30 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly, or prior to reaching a stage of manufacture where it may be readily completed, assembled, or converted to be a functional firearm.

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...