March 2, 2023, Oral Arguments
Sisolak vs. Polymer80, Incorporated
Falconi vs. Clark County Eighth Judicial District Court
Sisolak vs. Polymer80, Incorporated
Docket No. 83999
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court
This appeal involves a facial challenge to the constitutionality of NRS 202.253(9), NRS 202.3625, and NRS 202.363. NRS 202.253(9) defines unfinished firearm or receiver. NRS 202.3625 criminalizes the sale, “offer to sell or transfer” of an unfinished firearm or receiver unless an enumerated exception applies. NRS 202.363 criminalizes the “possess[ion], purchase, transport or … [receipt]” of an unfinished firearm or receiver unless an enumerated exception applies.
In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against several State officials, respondent Polymer80, a Nevada corporation selling “gun-related products,” challenged these sections as unconstitutionally vague. The district court ruled that NRS 202.3625 and NRS 202.363 are unconstitutionally vague. The State parties appealed. The questions presented in this appeal are the following: (1) Is the definition of “unfinished frame or receiver” unconstitutionally vague? (2) did the district court err in how it analyzed this vagueness challenge?
Falconi vs. Clark County Eighth Judicial District Court
Docket No. 84947
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Full Court
For Docket No. 85195: Petitioner filed a media request for an order permitting camera access to a custody proceeding. The district court denied that request under the newly amended EDCR 5.207 and EDCR 5.212. Petitioner challenges that denial in this petition for a writ of mandamus. ISSUE: are EDCR 5.207 and EDCR 5.212 constitutional?