Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Biden Administration Petition Supreme Court To Save ATF's Frames and Receivers Rule - VanDerStok Petition
Biden Administration Petition Supreme Court To Save ATF's Frames and Receivers Rule - VanDerStok Petition
XX-XX
v.
JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, ET AL.
ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General
BRIAN H. FLETCHER
Deputy Solicitor General
NICOLE FRAZER REAVES
Assistant to the Solicitor
General
MARK B. STERN
SEAN R. JANDA
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
[email protected]
(202) 514-2217
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.,
Congress imposed licensing, background-check, record-
keeping, and serialization requirements on persons en-
gaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms. The Act defines a “firearm” to in-
clude “any weapon * * * which will or is designed to or
may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the ac-
tion of an explosive,” as well as “the frame or receiver
of any such weapon.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A) and (B). In
2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Ex-
plosives issued a regulation clarifying that certain prod-
ucts that can readily be converted into an operational
firearm or a functional frame or receiver fall within that
definition. See 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (cod-
ified in relevant part at 27 C.F.R. 478.11, 478.12(c)).
The Fifth Circuit held that those regulatory provisions
are inconsistent with the Act. The questions presented
are:
1. Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to
or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or
otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action
of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a “firearm” regu-
lated by the Act.
2. Whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or
nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or
may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or oth-
erwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” 27
C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a “frame or receiver” regulated by
the Act.
(I)
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners were the defendants-appellants below.
They are the U.S. Department of Justice; the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);
Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States; and Steven Dettelbach, in
his official capacity as Director of ATF.
Respondents include the plaintiffs-appellees below.
They are Jennifer VanDerStok; Michael G. Andren;
Tactical Machining, L.L.C.; and Firearms Policy Coali-
tion, Inc. Respondents also include the intervenor
plaintiffs-appellees below. They are Blackhawk Manu-
facturing Group, Inc. (doing business as 80 Percent
Arms); Defense Distributed; Second Amendment Foun-
dation, Inc.; Not An L.L.C. (doing business as JSD Sup-
ply); and Polymer80, Inc.
(II)
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
United States District Court (S.D. Tex.):
VanDerStok v. Garland, No. 22-cv-691 (July 5, 2023)
United States Court of Appeals (5th Cir.):
VanDerStok v. Garland, No. 23-10463 (appeal dis-
missed Aug. 14, 2023)
VanDerStok v. Garland, No. 22-11071 (appeal dis-
missed Sept. 6, 2023)
VanDerStok v. Garland, No. 22-11086 (appeal dis-
missed Sept. 6, 2023)
VanDerStok v. Garland, No. 23-10718 (Nov. 9, 2023)
Supreme Court of the United States:
Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23A82 (Aug. 8, 2023)
Garland v. Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc.,
No. 23A302 (Oct. 16, 2023)
(III)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opinions below .............................................................................. 1
Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 2
Statutory and regulatory provisions involved ........................... 2
Statement:
A. Legal framework ............................................................. 2
B. ATF’s 2022 Rule .............................................................. 4
C. Procedural history ........................................................... 9
Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 13
I. The decision below is incorrect .................................... 13
A. A weapon parts kit falls within the plain
meaning of the Act’s definition of “firearm” ........ 14
B. A partially complete or nonfunctional frame or
receiver that can readily be completed qualifies
as a “frame or receiver” .......................................... 21
II. The decision below warrants review ............................ 28
Conclusion ................................................................................... 31
Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Nov. 9, 2023) ...... 1a
Appendix B — District court memorandum opinion
and order granting vacatur
(June 30, 2023) .......................................... 67a
Appendix C — District court final judgment
(July 5, 2023) ........................................... 115a
Appendix D — Supreme Court order vacating
injunction pending appeal
(Oct. 16, 2023).......................................... 118a
Appendix E — Court of appeals order granting in
part and denying in part motion
to vacate injunction pending appeal
(Oct. 2, 2023) ........................................... 119a
Appendix F — District court opinion and order
granting injunction pending appeal
(Sept. 14, 2023)........................................ 126a
Appendix G — Supreme Court order granting stay
pending appeal (Aug. 8, 2023) ............... 179a
(V)
VI
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014) ...... 3, 20, 29
Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355 (2023) .......................... 30
Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 (2022) ..................................... 30
Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
566 U.S. 399 (2012).............................................................. 20
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008)................................................................ 8
Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund,
140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) ......................................................... 28
Morehouse Enters., LLC v. ATF:
78 F.4th 1011 (8th Cir. 2023), reh’g en banc
denied, No. 22-2812, 2023 WL 7205512
(Nov. 2, 2023).............................................................. 30
No. 22-cv-116, 2022 WL 3597299 (D.N.D. Aug. 23,
2022), aff ’d, 78 F.4th 1011 (8th Cir. 2023) ............... 30
VII
Cases—Continued: Page
Pugin v. Garland, 599 U.S. 600 (2023) ................................ 21
United States v. Ryles, 988 F.2d 13 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 858 (1993) ....................................... 11
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, 141 S. Ct. 617 (2020) ........... 30
Statutes and regulations:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq............ 12
Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq. ..................... 2
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A) ................ 3, 6, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 26
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B) ........................................... 3, 13, 26
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4)(C) ..................................................... 19
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(25) ......................................................... 27
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30)(B) ................................................... 27
18 U.S.C. 922 ...................................................................... 2
18 U.S.C. 922(t) .................................................................. 2
18 U.S.C. 923 ...................................................................... 2
18 U.S.C. 923(a) ................................................................. 2
18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1)(A) ....................................................... 2
18 U.S.C. 923(i) .................................................................. 2
18 U.S.C. 926(a) ................................................................. 3
15 U.S.C. 901(3) (1940) .......................................................... 19
26 U.S.C. 5845(b) ................................................................... 27
26 U.S.C. 5845(c) .................................................................... 27
26 U.S.C. 5845(d) ................................................................... 27
27 C.F.R.:
Section 478.11 ............................................. 6, 11, 13, 15-17
Section 478.12(c) .....................................7, 8, 13, 21, 24, 25
28 C.F.R. 0.130(a) .................................................................... 3
VIII
Miscellaneous: Page
ATF:
National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking
Assessment (NFCTA): Crime Guns –
Volume Two, Part III (Jan. 11, 2023),
https://perma.cc/MQB6-4BJX .................................. 30
Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees:
Impact of Final Rule 2021-05F on Partially
Complete AR-15/M-16 Type Receivers (Sept.
27, 2022), https://perma.cc/S685-YJDY ................... 25
Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees:
Impact of Final Rule 2021-05F on Partially
Complete Polymer80, Lone Wolf, and Similar
Semiautomatic Pistol Frames (Dec. 27, 2022),
https://perma.cc/ZQ9Y-PAWV ............................ 22-24
33 Fed. Reg. 18,555 (Dec. 14, 1968) ....................................... 4
87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022) ...... 3-9, 16, 17, 24, 25, 29
Tom Jackman & Emily Davies, Teens buying
“ghost guns” online, with deadly consequences,
Wash. Post, July 12, 2023, https://perma.cc/
TJE5-3WF2............................................................. 28, 29, 30
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (1969) ........................................................... 14, 16
The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language (1966) ........................................................... 14, 16
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of
the English Language Unabridged (1968) ..... 14-17, 21, 27
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. XX-XX
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS
v.
JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, ET AL.
(1)
2
1
For pictures, see p. 23, infra. For a video of the assembly of
a frame parts kit that was cited in the Rule’s preamble, see
https://web.archive.org/web/20200331211935/https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=ThzFOIYZgIg (cited at 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,686 n.106).
6
2
The district court had previously entered preliminary injunc-
tions prohibiting the government from enforcing the challenged
provisions of the Rule against some respondents and their custom-
ers. Pet. App. 10a-11a. The government appealed those injunctions,
but dismissed the appeals after they were rendered moot by the dis-
trict court’s final judgment. Id. at 11a-12a.
11
3
The definitions of “convert” in other contemporary dictionaries
are of a piece. See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language 291 (1969) (American Heritage) (“To change into
another form, substance, state, or product; transform; transmute.”)
(emphasis omitted); The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language 230 (1966) (Random House) (“[T]o change (something)
into something of different form or properties; transmute; trans-
form.”).
15
4
See American Heritage 1085 (defining “readily” as “[p]romptly”
and “[e]asily”) (emphasis omitted); Random House 1195 (defining
“readily” as “promptly; quickly; easily”) (emphasis omitted).
17
5
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunc-
tion to other parties challenging the Rule, finding that none of those
parties had demonstrated irreparable harm; it therefore did not ad-
dress the merits. See Morehouse Enters., LLC v. ATF, 78 F.4th
1011, 1016-1018 (2023), reh’g en banc denied, No. 22-2812, 2023 WL
7205512 (Nov. 2, 2023). The district court in that case found that the
challengers were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their chal-
lenges to the Rule’s definition of “firearm” and “frame or receiver.”
Morehouse Enters., LLC v. ATF, No. 22-cv-116, 2022 WL 3597299,
at *5-*6 (D.N.D. Aug. 23, 2022), aff ’d, 78 F.4th 1011 (8th Cir. 2023).
31