Miller v. Garland

• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:23-cv-195 (RDA/JFA)
• Decision Date: 29 May 2023
• Parties: ROBERT M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

1

ROBERT M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-195 (RDA/JFA)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

May 29, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Rossie D. Alston, Jr. United States District Judge

This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion for a Nationwide Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (Dkt. 16) and a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 17). This matter has been fully briefed and argued and is now ripe for disposition. Considering the Motion, the supporting memoranda (Dkt. Nos. 16; 17), the Defendants' Response (Dkt. 22) Plaintiff's Reply (Dkt. 26), as well as the arguments raised at the hearing held before this Court on April 12 2023, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application for a Nationwide TRO and a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. Nos. 16;17) for the reasons that follow.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Congress enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”) in an attempt to regulate firearms in response to the emergence of organized crime. Lomont v. O'Neill, 285 F.3d 9, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The NFA focuses on the regulation of weapons such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Id. (internal citations omitted). There are eight specific categories under the NFA that are subject to registration and use requirements. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801-02, 5811-12, 5821-22, 5841, 5845(a). At issue in this case is the registration requirements for short- barreled rifles. A short-barreled rifle is a rifle that has “a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length” or “a weapon made from a rifle if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a)(3), (4). The NFA defines a rifle as:

[A] weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

Id. § 5845(c). The Act requires short-barreled rifles to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record to a person entitled to possess the firearm. Id. § 5841. Short-barreled rifles are also subject to certain taxes for ownership as well as transfer. Id. §§ 5811, 5812, 5821, 5822.

In 1968, Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-931, which expanded federal firearms regulation to address the “widespread traffic in firearms and . . . their general availability to those whose possession thereof was contrary to the public interest.” Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 825-26 (1974). The GCA built upon the NFA and defined additional terms that were not defined in the NFA, such as “handgun.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-22. The GCA's definition of rifle, however, remained the same as set forth in the NFA. Id. § 921(a)(7).

Congress vested the authority to enforce and administer both statutory schemes in the Attorney General of the United States, who then delegated that authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”). 28 C.F.R. § 0.130. Since then, consistent with its delegated authority, ATF has promulgated rules classifying whether various weapons and devices qualify as firearms under the NFA. 27 C.F.R. §§ 478, 479; e.g., U.S. ATF, Open Letter on the Redesign of “Stabilizing Braces” (Jan. 6, 2015) (explaining that use of a stabilizing brace as “as a shoulder stock” modifies a pistol or handgun into “a NFA firearm”).

In the last decade, there has been a proliferation of weapons equipped with various brace devices. Dkt. 22 at 4. Particularly, in 2012, the ATF received requests to classify a type of brace known as a stabilizing brace, which was originally designed “to assist people with disabilities or limited strength or mobility” in firing heavy pistols single-handedly. Id. at 5. However, as new types of stabilizing braces entered the market, the designs began to “include characteristics common to shoulder stocks.” Id. at 6. ATF soon learned that these braces were being marketed by manufacturers as a means of creating short-barreled rifles that were purportedly “ATF compliant,” even though the device had never been submitted for classification. Id. Ultimately, ATF became aware that manufacturers were using stabilizing braces as a means to skirt the requirements of the NFA. Id.

In response, ATF initiated a proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in June 2021, which proposed amendments to 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 regarding the definition of the term “rifle.” Dkt. 22 at 8. ATF received over 230,000 public comments and published its final rule on January 31, 2023. Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” 88 Fed.Reg. 6,478 (Jan. 31, 2023) (the “Final Rule”). As a result, the Final Rule amended the statutory definition of rifle to include “any weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment,” such as a stabilizing brace, “that provides surface area allowing the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” 88 Fed.Reg. at 6,497 (interpreting the definition of “rifle,” under both the NFA and GCA). ATF lists six other factors relevant to the determination:

1) Whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;

(2) Whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;

(3) Whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;

(4) Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;

(5) The manufacturer's direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and

(6) Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

88 Fed.Reg. 6,480. The NPRM also included a proposed table that created a weighted point system; but the Final Rule did not implement the point system. Id. at 6,479-80. The Final Rule took immediate effect, but gave individuals already possessing firearms subject to the rule until May 31, 2023 to come into compliance with the NFA. Id. at 6,570. Ultimately, the Final Rule makes it such that certain pistols equipped with stabilizing braces are now subject to heightened regulation under the NFA and the GCA.

B. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Robert Miller, a gun owner and firearms seller, is a citizen of Virginia who has sued Defendant Attorney General Merrick Garland, ATF, and the director of ATF, Steven Dettelbach. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on February 13, 2023 alleging that the regulation is unconstitutional and otherwise violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Dkt. 1. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application for a Nationwide Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 16, and an Application for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, Dkt. 17. On April 3, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposition, Dkt. 22, and on April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply. Dkt. 26. On April 12, this Court held oral argument. On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority, Dkt. 28, and on May 4, 2023, Defendants filed their Response to the Notice, Dkt. 29.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A preliminary injunction [or TRO]^[1]is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief' and may never be awarded ‘as of right.'” Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. W. Pocahontas Prop. LP., 918 F.3d 353, 366 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 24 (2008)). And “granting a preliminary injunction requires that a district court, acting on an incomplete record, order a party to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way.” Hughes Network Sys. v. InterDigital Commc'ns Corp., 17 F.3d 691, 693 (4th Cir. 1994). Courts do not lightly award this extraordinary relief, and preliminary injunctions are therefore “to be granted only sparingly.” Toolchex, Inc. v. Trainor, 634 F.Supp.2d 586, 593 (E.D. Va. 2008) (quoting In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2003)).

In order to be eligible for such relief, a plaintiff “must establish that: (1) [he] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) [he] is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the preliminary injunction [or TRO]; (3) the balance of the equities tips in [his] favor; and (4) the injunction [or TRO] is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “The failure to show any one of the relevant factors mandates denial of the preliminary injunction [or TRO].” Parson v. Alcorn, 157 F.Supp.3d 479, 491 (E.D. Va. 2016) (citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Plaintiff attacks the Final Rule on several grounds: (1) that the Final Rule exceeds ATF's authority; (2) that the Final Rule violates various Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) procedural requirements, (3) that the Final Rule implicates...