Texas v. Bureau of Alcohol
| Docket Number | Civil Action 6:23-CV-00013 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2023 |
| Parties | The STATE OF TEXAS, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION, and BRADY BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and STEVEN M. DETTELBACH, Director of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in his official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
In the early 20th century, Congress sought to regulate what it perceived to be a dangerous subset of firearms in an effort to curb organized crime. To that end, Congress first passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”) and later the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”). These statutes remain two of the primary means for regulating and licensing firearms at the federal level. They impose heightened requirements on the manufacture, sale, and transfer of certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles (“SBRs”). That is important in this case because pistols, revolvers, and handguns are not subject to those enhanced requirements.
Since 2012, however, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) has seen a dramatic increase in the use of stabilizing braces on handguns. These braces were originally designed to assist people with disabilities, or mobility or strength issues so that they could safely handle heavy handguns. Over time, some of these stabilizing braces have taken on a new function and appearance and have morphed into what looks like a shoulder stock. As a result, handguns with those stabilizing braces attached now look like a rifle.
In January 2023, the ATF promulgated a Final Rule that modified the ATF's earlier regulations addressing how the agency would determine whether a weapon is a “rifle” for purposes of the NFA and GCA. One of the primary changes involves whether a handgun is transformed into an SBR when certain stabilizing braces are attached. So, the Final Rule instituted a six-part test for making this determination.
Plaintiffs have sued to invalidate the Final Rule alleging that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that the Final Rule places law abiding citizens at risk of unwittingly becoming felons overnight. Plaintiffs ask for a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect. Specifically Plaintiffs request a nationwide injunction on the rule to maintain the status quo ante prior to the Final Rule's promulgation at the start of the year.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 16). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion.
This case challenges an agency's final rule. Therefore, the regulatory history of the Final Rule is an integral part of the Court's analysis. The Court will review the relevant statutes from which the ATF derived its authority to promulgate this Final Rule in order to understand its impact and decide whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate.
In 1934, Congress passed the NFA. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801-5872. The NFA was Congress's introduction to firearm regulation and “concentrated on particularly dangerous weapons and devices such as machine guns, sawedoff shotguns and silencers.” Lomont v. O'Neill, 285 F.3d 9, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 511-12, 57 S.Ct. 554, 554-55, 81 L.Ed. 772 (1937)). To ensure that it covered only the most dangerous class of weapons, the NFA identified eight categories of “firearms” that the statute would regulate. See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a).
The dispute in this case concerns two categories of firearms commonly referred to as SBRs. Id. § 5845(a)(3), (4). These two subsections describe an SBR as “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length” or “a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” Id. The NFA also defines a rifle:
The term “rifle” means 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.[1]
Id. § 5845(c) (emphasis added). The “made or remade” phrasing within the definition is construed broadly. Specifically, the NFA defines “make” to include “manufacturing . . ., putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.” Id. § 5845(i) (emphasis added). Taken together, these portions of the NFA mean that a rifle-which alone would not be regulated by the NFA-can be put together or altered by its owner in a way that renders it an SBR, subject to the NFA.
To be clear, the NFA does not ban SBRs-it regulates them. Such regulations require, inter alia, (1) requesting permission to create the SBR, (2) paying a $200 tax for every approved SBR made by an unlicensed person, (3) registering the SBR in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, (4) and placing a serial number on the SBR. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5821, 5822. Making or possessing an SBR in violation of any of these requirements is a crime. See 26 U.S.C. § 5871. And if charged with violating the statute, an offender could face up to 10 years in prison, up to $250,000 in fines, or both. Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3). Therefore, whether a specific modification to a firearm would convert it into an NFA-regulated SBR has tremendous ramifications for actual and prospective gun owners alike.
The power to enforce and administer the NFA is vested in the U.S. Attorney General. 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). The Attorney General has delegated that responsibility to the ATF. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.130. Specifically, the ATF has the power to issue regulations, i.e., the ATF can publish interpretations of Congress' various gun statutes and offer explanations on how gun owners can best comply. See 27 C.F.R. pts. 478, 479. Moreover, the ATF has also made a practice of taking “classification requests,” in which firearm manufacturers and members of the public can “submit weapons or other devices to the ATF for a classification of whether the weapon or device qualifies as a ‘firearm' under the NFA.” NFA Handbook § 7.2.4 (Apr. 2009), https://perma.cc/P3NLG35G.
Near the end of 2020, the ATF turned its attention to a class of pistol attachments generally described as stabilizing braces. (Dkt. No. 22 at 22-23). Namely, the ATF grew concerned after “receiv[ing] an increasing number of classification requests for weapons equipped” with brace attachments resembling “characteristics common to shoulder stocks.” (Id. at 21).
In January 2023, the ATF addressed its concerns with its newest rule, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces'” (the “Final Rule”). 88 Fed.Reg. 6478 (Jan. 31, 2023) (). The Final Rule sought to clarify the ATF's interpretation of “rifle,” as defined in the NFA. 88 Fed.Reg. at 6574-75 ( 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11, 479.11). Under the Final Rule, the phrasing in the NFA's definition of rifle, “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” would now be read even more broadly than before, including:
a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder[.]
Id. at 6480. If a weapon after production or modification fits this description, the Final Rule then employs six factors to determine whether the weapon is now converted into a rifle under the NFA. Id. These factors include:
Id. “If a firearm with an attached ‘stabilizing brace' meets the definition of a ‘rifle' based on the factors indicated in this final rule, then that firearm could also be a short-barreled rifle depending on the length of the attached barrel, thus subjecting it to additional requirements under the NFA[.]” Id. While the ATF does not elaborate on how this rubric will operate, e.g., whether each factor is weighted the same or some more than others, the effects of the rubric are clear-almost every time a weapon is evaluated under this new framework, it will be classified as a rifle. For example, in its “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis,” regarding the Final Rule, the ATF...
To continue reading
Request your trial