Firearms company Polymer80 is looking to intervene in the lawsuit over ghost guns filed against the federal government by the state and the parents whose children died during the 2019 Saugus High School shooting.
The lawsuit against the Department of Justice demands that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, categorize ghost guns as firearms so they are subject to the same regulations as other guns. The case was filed in late September.
Polymer 80 sells online build-it-yourself kits, which include parts to make a ghost gun, meaning the buyer receives the item as 80% built and must complete the remaining 20%. The company, which was not listed as a defendant, is arguing it has a right to intervene in the case and is asking the court to grant the motion. The company said it wants to intervene in order “to defend the legality and propriety in every respect” to three classification letters issued to Polymer80 by the ATF saying that all of its products under review were not considered firearms under federal law.
Bureau officials have continuously said ghost guns are not firearms and not subject to the same regulations because they haven’t reached the manufacturing process stage to qualify them as guns. Firearm advocates contend that said guns have always been legal and that prohibiting law-abiding hobbyists from the kits infringes upon their constitutional rights.
Polymer80 says it should be allowed to intervene because of “a significant protectable interest arising from this case,” “the possibility of that interest being affected or curtailed by this matter” and “the inadequacy of the current defendants in representing all of Polymer80’s interests and concerns,” according to their argument.
In a Jan. 14 response, the plaintiffs, which include the Saugus High families and the state, argued that “intervention would expand and delay the case and duplicate the government’s able defense,” reads the lawsuit, which added that “intervention by ghost gun manufacturers is neither necessary nor appropriate because their interests are adequately represented in the litigation and any insights they may have are properly the subject of an amicus brief, not party participation.”
A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 25 in San Francisco.
