Judge Strikes Down Delaware Gun Ban
PHOTO CAPTION: An unserialized privately manufactured firearm photographed by federal authorities. Privately made firearms without manufacturer-applied serial numbers are commonly referred to as “ghost guns.” (U.S. Department of Justice)
A federal judge has ruled that Delaware cannot broadly prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing or making unserialized firearms, handing gun-rights advocates a significant Second Amendment victory in a case that has been litigated for nearly five years.
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued the 29-page opinion Sept. 10 in Rigby v. Jennings, a challenge to portions of Delaware House Bill 125. The law criminalized several activities involving unserialized firearms, unfinished firearm frames and receivers, and 3D-printed firearms.
Noreika concluded that Delaware’s ban on possessing unserialized firearms and certain unfinished frames or receivers violates the Second Amendment. She also struck down provisions prohibiting people from manufacturing or assembling untraceable firearms, including using a 3D printer to produce firearms or major firearm components.
The ruling does not invalidate every restriction in the law.
The court upheld Delaware’s restrictions governing the commercial distribution of unfinished frames, receivers and untraceable firearms. Noreika wrote that those provisions regulate commercial sales rather than the keeping or bearing of arms.
The judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to Delaware’s restriction on distributing certain digital files or code used to program 3D printers to make firearms. The court found the plaintiffs had not shown that the specific computer code at issue qualified as protected expressive speech.
The Second Amendment portion of the ruling centered on whether unserialized and self-manufactured firearms are protected “arms” and whether the right to keep arms also protects the ability to acquire them by making them at home.
Noreika concluded that it does.
The opinion states that the Second Amendment protects acquiring firearms and that self-manufacturing is one method of doing so. The court also noted that Delaware’s assembly prohibition could interfere with ordinary activities such as disassembling, cleaning, repairing and reassembling a lawfully owned firearm.
Two individual plaintiffs illustrated the practical effect of the state law.
According to the court, plaintiff John Rigby previously lawfully owned a self-manufactured Glock-compatible handgun but disposed of it after Delaware enacted the restrictions because he feared prosecution. Plaintiff Alan Knight similarly disposed of unfinished firearm components he had previously acquired legally. Both said they wanted to manufacture firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
Noreika ultimately concluded that Delaware failed to identify a sufficiently similar historical tradition supporting an outright prohibition on possessing or manufacturing the firearms at issue.
The court specifically rejected comparisons Delaware offered involving historical restrictions on Bowie knives, trap guns, unusually large firearms and gunpowder storage, finding those laws addressed materially different concerns.
The judge held that the possession and manufacturing-and-assembly bans are unconstitutional both on their face and as applied to the plaintiffs.
The ruling is a merits decision, making it significantly different from an earlier 2022 stage of the same lawsuit, when Noreika temporarily blocked portions of the law while the litigation continued. The Sept. 10 decision grants summary judgment in part to each side and moves the case substantially closer to a final resolution.
The case is Rigby v. Jennings, No. 1:21-cv-01523, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Sources: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; ATF
(Source: OAF Nation)
