Dismissal of suit challenging Weapons Control Act sought

The CNMI government has filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the NMI to dismiss the lawsuit filed by an Army veteran against the Department of Public Safety and DPS Commissioner Anthony I. Macaranas challenging the CNMI’s Weapons Control Act.

Last Tuesday, CNMI Chief Solicitor J. Robert Glass Jr. filed a motion asking the District Court for the NMI to dismiss the lawsuit of Army veteran Paul Murphy against DPS and Macaranas that challenges the CNMI’s Weapons Control Act; specifically, the local ban on gun silencers.

Glass’ basis for dismissal is that Murphy failed to properly serve defendant and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

According to the motion for dismissal, Murphy filed his complaint last Sept. 3 indicating two causes of action; the denial of possession of certain “arms” violated Murphy’s rights under the Second Amendment, and declaratory judgment that a 6 CMC § 2222 and Public Law 19-42 § 208(a)(2)1 are unconstitutional. In addition, Murphy sought an injunction prohibiting DPS and commissioner Macaranas from enforcing 6 CMC §§ 2222 and 10208(a)(2).

As to 6 CMC § 2222(a), it states that “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive a firearm silencer, except as authorized by law.”

Meanwhile, CNMI P.L. 19-42 §208(a)2 states “no person shall possess: A silencer, sound suppressor or sound moderator.”

Glass explains that a summons was issued the same day and was allegedly served on Sgt. Gabriel Manglona of DPS.

“The return was filed Sept, 4, with the server’s alleged signature, but the printed name and title is that of Sgt. Gabriel Manglona, so it is unclear who served the summons and complaint. The P.O. box address that is included in the executed return is for the Law Office of Stephen J. Nutting,” Glass said.

In addition, Glass asks that the court to dismiss with prejudice any claim regarding 6 CMC § 2222(a) as it no longer exists.

“The statute being challenged by plaintiff was repealed by the Legislature in Public Law 19-73 § 3 in 2016. The specific statute being challenged, 6 CMC § 2222(a), no longer exists. Thus, this court should dismiss any claim relating to 6 CMC § 2222(a) with prejudice because even if plaintiff were correct and the ban on sound suppressors, moderators, and silencers is unconstitutional it could not grant the relief requested in declaring a repealed statute unconstitutional,” Glass said.

Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona is set to hear the matter on Oct. 31.

In 2016, Murphy won his lawsuit against DPS, which he sued to stop the enforcement of the Commonwealth Weapons Act and the Special Act for Firearms and Enforcement or SAFE.

In 2020, Murphy filed another complaint against DPS for enforcing gun law provisions found unconstitutional.

In his recent complaint, he based his lawsuit on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, and is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in challenging the CNMI’s Weapons Control Act and the CNMI’s SAFE Act.

Murphy said pursuant to the Covenant to establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in political union with the United States of America, the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution are applicable to the CNMI.

In his lawsuit, Murphy stated that on Aug. 9, 2023, former DPS commissioner Clement R. Bermudes denied his request for firearm possession of a Maxim Defense POX-SD pistol chambered in 5.56 NATO with a built-in “soup can” suppressor.

On June 24, 2024, Bermudes’ successor Macaranas allegedly denied Murphy’s request for possession of a Banish 30 suppressor and a Ruger MKIV-SD Integral Suppressor .22-caliber pistol.