Palmer v. Sisolak

Opinion

5 * * *

6 ROGER PALMER, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00268-MMD-CSD Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 22-15645 7 Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ORDER 8 JOSEPH LOMBARDO, et al., 9 Defendants - Appellees. 10 11 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued its order 12 for limited remand (ECF No. 72), directing this Court “solely to develop the historical and 13 factual record” in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & 14 Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The Bruen decision abrogated 15 the two-step framework this Court had applied in evaluating Plaintiffs’ Second 16 Amendment claim. (Id. at 2-3; see also ECF No. 65 at 4-11.) The Ninth Circuit specifically 17 ordered the Court to make findings as to: “(1) whether A.B. 286 conforms to ‘this Nation’s 18 historical tradition of firearm regulation,’ Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2126; (2) whether it is 19 possible in Nevada to lawfully add a serial number to a self-manufactured unserialized 20 firearm and/or unfinished frame or receiver, and if so, how and under what circumstances; 21 (3) whether it is possible in Nevada to lawfully obtain serialized self-manufacturing and/or 22 self-assembly firearm kits, and if so, how and under what circumstances; and (4) what 23 kind of self-manufacturing Plaintiffs want to engage in.” (Id.) 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that the parties must file a joint status report with the Court 2 || within 30 days of the date of entry of this order that proposes a series of next steps in this 3 || case that will develop the factual and historical record on the Second Amendment issue 4 || to resolution in line with the Ninth Circuit’s order. 5 DATED THIS 22"4 Day of June 2023.

7 MIRANDAM.DU-——