Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, CIV. A. 97-2956(TAF).
| Decision Date | 07 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. A. 97-2956(TAF).,CIV. A. 97-2956(TAF). |
| Citation | 18 F.Supp.2d 29 |
| Parties | MODERN MUZZLELOADING, INC., Plaintiff, v. John MAGAW, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, VA, for Plaintiff.
Wilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney, Kimberly N. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, DC, Patricia W. Milgram, David C. Lieberman, Office of Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for Defendant.
This matter came before the Court at a hearing on July 24, 1998. In February, the Court considered the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court denied the motions, remanding to the ATF for further explanation of its classification of the Knight Disc Rifle. Pending before the Court are the parties' renewed cross-motions for summary judgment. After considering the parties' written submissions, their arguments at the hearing, and the applicable law, the Court grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiff's motion.
This case involves a challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm's ("ATF") decision to classify the Knight Disc Rifle as a firearm for purposes of the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"), as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-930. The statute excludes "antique firearms" from the class subject to regulation. Modern Muzzleloading, Inc., the manufacturer of the Knight Disc Rifle, contends that the rifle is an antique firearm that should not be subject to regulation under the GCA. Acting on that view, for the fifteen-month period ending in December 1997, Modern Muzzleloading manufactured and distributed 30,000 Knight Disc Rifles without a license.1 In this action, Modern Muzzleloading has sued the Director of the ATF, seeking both (1) a declaration that the Knight Disc Rifle is not a firearm for purposes of the GCA and (2) an order enjoining ATF from enforcing its classification of the rifle. Modern Muzzleloading previously sought a preliminary injunction, which the Court denied in its February order.
The GCA defines the term "firearm" as "any weapon ... which will or is designed to ... expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). However, "[s]uch term does not include an antique firearm." Id. The GCA defines the term "antique firearm" as follows:
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; and
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica —
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16). This case turns on whether the Knight Disc Rifle is a replica within the meaning of subparagraph (B). Since it is a currently-manufactured weapon, the rifle cannot qualify directly under subparagraph (A). It is also undisputed that the rifle does not accept either rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition and that, therefore, subparagraphs (B)(i) and (B)(ii) do not apply. Both parties agree that the term replica should or may be understood by referring to the parenthetical language found in subparagraph (A). Nevertheless, the parties disagree about the scope of this parenthetical and its affect on the determination of what constitutes a replica under subparagraph (B).
As this Court discussed in its February decision, the key characteristic of the Knight Disc Rifle is its use of either a percussion cap2 or a shotgun primer3 as an ignition system. The rifle is designed so that each of those systems is held in place by a plastic disc with a hole in its center, into which the user inserts the ignition system. Modern Muzzleloading sells two discs for use in the rifle. One, a red disc that actually comes with the rifle, is designed to accept a percussion cap. The other, an orange disc that Modern Muzzleloading sells as an accessory, is designed to accept a shotgun primer. The only difference in the discs is that the hole in the center of the orange disc is slightly larger, because the shotgun primer used in the rifle is slightly larger than a percussion cap. The use of the primer is viewed by the ATF as a defining characteristic in determining whether the Knight Disc Rifle is properly classified as an "antique."
In October 1997, ATF wrote Modern Muzzleloading, stating that it had received inquiries regarding the status of the Knight Disc Rifle and requesting samples of the rifle and its accessories. After receiving those items from Modern Muzzleloading, ATF examined the rifle. The ATF official who inspected the rifle concluded that ATF Inspection Report, Admin. Record at 16.
The conclusion reached in the report was consistent with the position expressed by the ATF in an industry circular released three weeks before the inspection of the Knight Disc Rifle. That circular found that 4 ATF Industry Circular, November 6, 1997, Admin. Record at 14.
Subsequent to its release of the industry circular and inspection of the Knight Disc Rifle, ATF informed Modern Muzzleloading of its classification decision in a letter dated December 8, 1997. Explaining its view that the Knight Disc Rifle is a firearm, ATF noted that its examination revealed that "the rifle is designed to use # 209 shotgun primers regardless of the type of disc actually used in the rifle."5 ATF wrote the following:
Such shotgun primers are distinctly different from percussion caps. As defined in [the GCA], the term ammunition means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm. Number 209 shotgun primers are designed for use in "firearms" and the primers are ammunition subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. chapter 44. Percussion caps are not ammunition as defined.
Based on our examination, the rifle is designed to use shotgun primers or percussion caps interchangeably and is not a replica of an antique firearm. Accordingly, the rifle is a firearm as defined in [the GCA].
Classification Decision Letter dated December 8, 1997.
The Court's February 18, 1998 decision found that the ATF was essentially relying entirely on the fact that the GCA defines primers of the type used in the Knight Disc Rifle as ammunition subject to regulation. Modern Muzzleloading v. Magaw, Inc., No. 97-2956, slip op. at 8 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 1998).
The Court stated that this was the only reason that the ATF asserted to support its position that primers are "distinctly different from percussion caps." Id. (quoting Classification Decision Letter dated December 8, 1997). Accordingly, the Court remanded to the ATF in order to allow the agency to prepare a more thorough explanation of its classification of the Knight Disc Rifle. Id. at 10. The Court also found the GCA ambiguous with regard to whether shotgun primers, as used in the rifle, are an antique ignition system. Id.
Following remand in this case, the ATF further examined the classification of the Knight Disc Rifle. By letter dated May 15, 1998, the ATF advised plaintiff that it was reaffirming its classification of the Knight Disc Rifle as a firearm. The ATF explained that the Knight Disc Rifle is not an antique firearm because it is designed to use a modern centerfire shotgun primer as an ignition system. The ATF also explained why modern centerfire shotgun primers are not similar to the matchlock, flintlock, and percussion cap ignition systems specified in the definition of an antique firearm found in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16)(A).
On May 15, 1998 the ATF also filed a renewed motion for summary judgment in the present action. ATF contends that it has addressed the Court's earlier concerns and is now entitled to summary judgment. ATF argues that its classification of the Knight Disc Rifle is consistent with the language and purpose of the GCA. ATF argues that the Administrative Procedure Act's ("APA") deferential standard of review and the teachings of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) apply to this case and accordingly the ATF's decision should be upheld because it is not arbitrary or capricious. The plaintiff opposes this motion, arguing that the ATF has not provided this court with any information to support its position. Plaintiff contends that the record clearly demonstrates that a primer of the type used in the Knight Disc Rifle is an antique ignition system. Plaintiff also disputes the applicable standard of review, claiming that because a criminal statute is at issue, the deferential approach of Chevron is inapposite and the Court should instead apply the rule of lenity. It further argues that even if the Court applied an arbitrary and capricious standard to defendant's conduct, the ATF decision should not be sustained. The plaintiff contends that the defendant's standard for analyzing the Knight Disc Rifle as a possible antique is inconsistent with the GCA because a primer is a "similar type of ignition system" and hence a replica...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fontana v. Caldera
...agency's interpretation of a statute is entitled to deference, even in the informal adjudicatory setting." Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F.Supp.2d 29, 34 (D.D.C.1998); see also, e.g., Seafarers Int'l Union v. United States, 891 F.Supp. 641, 646 (D.D.C.1995) (assuming the applicabi......
-
Aspilaire v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 19-12605
...§ 790.001(1), so they are typically considered antique firearms under Florida law by virtue of their ignition systems, see Toby Bridges, Muzzleloading 12–21 (1997) (tracing the history of "muzzleloader ignition systems" through the "matchlock, wheellock, snaphaunce, miquelet, flintlock, per......
-
U.S. v. One Trw, Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle
...is inconsistent on the question of whether ATF firearm classifications enjoy full Chevron deference. Compare Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F.Supp.2d 29, 36 (D.D.C.1998)(explicitly applying Chevron deference to review of ATF classification of Knight Disc Rifle as a firearm), with Y......
-
Public corruption.
...in context of a civil suit). Some aspects of Crandon have been construed with more limitation. See Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 1998) (narrowing Crandon use of the rule of lenity to after the Court has found that the history indicates a narrow reading o......
-
Public corruption.
...in context of a civil suit). Some aspects of Crandon have been construed with more limitation. See Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 1998) (narrowing Crandon use of the rule of lenity to after the Court has found that the history indicates a narrow reading o......
-
Public corruption.
...government employees at time payments were made and received in context of a civil suit). But see Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 1998) (narrowing Crandon's use of the rule of (360.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 209(b)-(f) (2000) (delineating exceptions). (361.) Un......
-
Public corruption.
...in context of a civil suit). Some aspects of Crandon have been construed with more limitation. See Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 1998) (narrowing Crandon's use of the rule of (356.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 209(b)-(f) (2000) (delineating exceptions); see Exch......