Jump to content

LA/Polymer80 case settled on so-called "ghost guns"


Recommended Posts

This does not make me smile:


LA, Polymer80 reach settlement on "ghost gun" sales – Bearing Arms


Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced a $5 million settlement Tuesday in a lawsuit against Nevada-based Polymer80, permanently prohibiting the company from selling its “ghost gun” kits in the state without first conducting background checks of buyers and serializing its products.

As part of the settlement, the company must pay $4 million in civil penalties, and its two founders must pay an additional $1 million in civil penalties.

“This settlement holds Polymer80 and its founders accountable, keeps guns out of the hands of prohibited people, makes L.A. neighborhoods safer and will help law enforcement to their jobs,” Feldstein Soto said in a statement.

“More than 16,000 people have been killed by gun violence so far in 2023. This is an important step toward preventing unnecessary deaths, especially as Congress repeatedly fails to take action.”


And, again for the record, these are actual ghost guns:

Ghostbusters (1984) - Ritz Cinemas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a betting man I would say this is a mostly publicity settlement.  I highly suspect P80 will not pay any of that or possibly a small percentage as long as they continue to follow California's rules going foward.


It's really odd timing for a settlement like this (post-Bruen) where serialization itself is a questionably unconstitutional requirement unless P80 got a sweet deal in the fine print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 2:46 PM, yurimodin said:

No questionably about it. Serialization was not required until the GCA in 1968.....no founding era analogue of serialization, (or background checks for that matter either)


Exactly, and it was only enacted then to assist police and law enforcement aka a public interest aka means-ends policy. I don't see how it can stand post Bruen unless the SCOTUS overrules and reverses course on Heller/Bruen. And we have to remember that once law is found unconstitutional it's as if it never existed at all since day one, so a settlement in this case is just odd at this point in time, if they were found guilty/liable they would have a very solid defense and possibly even a potential 1983 claim, now they have basically nothing, thus I suspect the fine print was actually pretty sweat for them but allows California to brag.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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