Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-05409/USCOURTS-caDC-00-05409-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 3, 2001 Decided June 14, 2002

No. 00-5409

Springfield, Inc.,

Appellant

v.

Bradley A. Buckles, Director, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Department of the Treasury,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(99cv01224)

Stephen P. Halbrook argued the cause for appellant. With

him on the briefs was Richard E. Gardiner.

Michael S. Raab, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were

Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern,

Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 1 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Stuart J. Land, Robert S. Litt and Robert J. Katerberg

were on the brief for amicus curiae The Brady Center to

Prevent Gun Violence, et al.

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Randolph and Tatel,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: The Secretary of the Treasury

must authorize the importation of any firearm that is "of a

type" "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or

readily adaptable to sporting purposes." 18 U.S.C.

s 925(d)(3). In April 1998, the Secretary announced that

modified semiautomatic assault rifles with the ability to accept large capacity military magazines do not satisfy

s 925(d)(3), and therefore may not be imported pursuant to

that section. As a result, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, an agency within the Treasury Department, revoked import permits held by Springfield, Inc., for two makes

of rifles and denied Springfield's import applications. The

company sued the Director of BATF for an order compelling

issuance of the permits. The district court granted summary

judgment against Springfield.

I.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 vests the Treasury Secretary

with authority to regulate the importation of firearms. The

Secretary has delegated his authority to the Director of

BATF. See 18 U.S.C. s 922(a)(1); Treas. Dep't Order No.

120-01 (June 6, 1972). Aside from "curios" or "relics," see 18

U.S.C. s 925(e), no firearm may be imported unless it:

(1) is being imported or brought in for scientific or

research purposes, or is for use in connection with competition or training pursuant to [firearms programs of

the U.S. Army, 10 U.S.C. s 4301 et seq.];

(2) is an unserviceable firearm, other than a machinegun as defined in [26 U.S.C. s 5845(a)] (not readily

restorable to firing condition), imported or brought in as

a curio or museum piece;

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 2 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition

of a firearm as defined in [26 U.S.C. s 5845(a)] and is

generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Secretary

has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any

frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be

prohibited if assembled; or

(4) was previously taken out of the United States or a

possession by the person who is bringing in the firearm

or ammunition.

18 U.S.C. s 925(d).

A BATF study in 1989 identified several characteristics of

the modern military assault rifle. These included the ability

to accept a detachable magazine, folding/telescoping stocks,

separate pistol grips, ability to accept a bayonet, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights. Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the

Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles 6-8 (1989)

[hereinafter ATF Working Group]. As to detachable magazines, the agency reported that

Virtually all modern military firearms are designed to

accept large, detachable magazines. This provides the

soldier with a fairly large ammunition supply and the

ability to rapidly reload. Thus, large capacity magazines

are indicative of military firearms. While detachable

magazines are not limited to military firearms, most

traditional semiautomatic sporting firearms, designed to

accommodate a detachable magazine, have a relatively

small magazine capacity. In addition, some States have

a limit on the magazine capacity allowed for hunting,

usually 8 rounds or less. That a firearm is designed and

sold with a large capacity magazine, e.g., 20-30 rounds, is

a factor to be considered in determining whether a

firearm is a semiautomatic assault rifle.

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 3 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Id. at 6-7. After the 1989 study, BATF took the position that

a rifle with any of these military configurations, other than

the ability to accept a large magazine, failed the sporting

purpose test of s 925(d)(3). See Department of Treasury

Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic

Assault Rifles 11 (1998) [hereinafter Treasury Department

Study]. Manufacturers responded by modifying their weapons to remove these seven military features.

From 1989 through 1997, BATF permitted Springfield to

import rifles known as the "SAR8 Sporter" and the

"SAR4800 Sporter" (and other slightly-altered versions of

these two rifles with, for example, longer barrels). The SAR8

Sporter is a modified version of an assault rifle produced by a

German firearms manufacturer, Heckler & Koch. The

SAR4800 Sporter is a modified version of the FN-FAL, a

Belgian weapon.1 Both of Springfield's rifles have the ability

to accept large, military-style magazines.

In 1997, a group of Senators complained to the President

about the importation of "military-style assault weapons"

such as modified versions of the Israeli-made Uzi. At the

direction of the President, BATF temporarily suspended all

import licenses for "modified semiautomatic assault-type rifles," including Springfield's. In a study completed six

months later, the Treasury Department concluded that rifles

which can accept large capacity, detachable magazines--those

containing more than 10 bullets--are not firearms "generally

recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to

sporting purposes" within s 925(d)(3). See generally Treasury Department Study.

BATF notified Springfield by letter that it proposed to

suspend the company's import permits for the SAR8 and the

SAR4800 on the ground that these firearms did not qualify

under s 925(d)(3), citing the study. Springfield responded by

reminding BATF of its earlier decision--made in 1989--to

permit importation of Springfield's rifles. The company saw

__________

1 The basis for BATF granting import permits to Springfield for

these rifles (e.g., what particular sporting purposes were involved) is

not clear from the record.

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 4 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

no reason for a different conclusion nine years later and

urged a return to the prior decision. Without supplying any

fresh information, Springfield argued that the "ability to

accept a large capacity military magazine is also the ability to

accept a small capacity non-military magazine" and that

"[s]ome shooting sports require a large capacity magazine

and some require a small capacity magazine."

In January 1999, the BATF Director issued his final judgment rejecting Springfield's administrative "appeal" and suspending its import licenses. The Director rejected the idea

that the rifles had a sporting purpose because no military

would use them in combat and because the rifles could be

used for target shooting or hunting. Citing the 1998 study,

the Director pointed out that criminals often use such rifles.

The Director also reiterated that it is the ability to accept a

large capacity magazine, not the size of the magazine actually

used, which prevents the Springfield rifles from being generally recognized as having a sporting purpose. The Director

refused to infer a sporting purpose for the Springfield firearms from the fact that Congress--when it passed the 1994

assault weapons ban, 18 U.S.C. s 922(v)--did not completely

ban a similar weapon. Finally, the Director pointed out that

the company provided no evidence to support its assertion

that some shooting sports require a large capacity magazine.

For the most part, the BATF Director adhered to the

interpretation of s 925(d)(3) comprehensively set forth in a

1989 Director's decision revoking the importation permits of

Mitchell Arms, Inc. The 1989 decision described the agency's

view of s 925(d)(3) thus:2 "In over 20 years of administering

this provision, ATF has interpreted the phrase 'particularly

suitable for or readily adaptable to' as a unit. The phrase has

not been dissected and the terms given separate application

or meaning. Reading the phrase as a whole gives effect to

the congressional intent that only genuine sporting rifles be

__________

2 This decision was the subject of a Takings Clause claim rejected

by the United States Claims Court and the Federal Circuit. See

Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1, 3 (1992), aff'd, 7

F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 5 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

imported." Mitchell Arms, Inc., Decision of the Director

Revoking Import Permits and Denying Applications for Import Permits 31 (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

Nov. 6, 1989). As to the words "readily adaptable to sporting

purposes," the 1989 decision rejected the idea that a firearm

would qualify so long as it could be modified to allow its use

for activities such as hunting. Such an interpretation "would

allow the importation of virtually any and all rifles without

distinction.... As Congress could not sensibly have sought

to make a firearm importable based on changes that theoretically could be made after importation, the phrase 'generally

recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to

sporting purposes' must refer to the characteristics of the

firearm that exist at the time of importation." Id. The 1989

decision also rejected the argument that "sporting purposes,"

as used in s 925(d)(3), included "every conceivable type of

activity or competition which might include a firearm. Otherwise, a 'sporting purpose' could be advanced for every firearm

sought to be imported." Id. at 22.

This BATF reading of s 925(d)(3) has remained constant.

The views expressed in the Director's 1989 decision were also

preceded by an agency study of assault weapons. See generally ATF Working Group. The 1998 study, and the Director's reasoning in support of his revocation of Springfield's

permits, reflect the agency's earlier construction of

s 925(d)(3). What changed as a result of the 1998 study, and

in the Director's decision in this case, is not so much the

agency's view of the statute, but its application of an interpretation it had long followed.

II.

We will not spend much time dealing with the question

raised by United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)--

namely, whether Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and its requirement of judicial

deference to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes,

applies to informal adjudications of the sort we have in this

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 6 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

case.3 Whether we follow Chevron or simply review the

Director's statutory construction on the basis of Skidmore v.

Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), see Am. Fed'n of Gov't

Employees v. Veneman, 284 F.3d 125, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2002), is

of no moment. The persuasiveness of the agency's reasoning,

in both the Director's 1989 and 1999 decisions, the application

of BATF's expertise, and the lack of evidence to support

Springfield's assertions, lead us to the same result under

either line of authority.

Springfield's first contention is that even if its rifles are not

"particularly suitable for" "sporting purposes," they are

"readily adaptable to" that end because they can accept small

magazines. But s 925(d)(3) also requires that the firearm be

"generally recognized" as one used in sport. BATF's view,

ever since the statute became law three decades ago, has

been to treat the words of s 925(d)(3) as a whole and to view

the alternative elements--"particularly suitable" or "readily

adaptable" as interrelated. In other words, there must be

general recognition that the particular firearm is adaptable to

sport. Springfield presented no evidence to the Director that

its rifles, designed to hold large, military magazines, are

nonetheless "generally recognized" as adaptable to sporting

__________

3 Cf. FEC v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., 254 F.3d 173, 184-86 (D.C.

Cir. 2001) (granting Chevron deference to interpretations in FEC

advisory opinions); In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775, 780 (D.C. Cir.

2000) (Chevron deference for interpretations in FEC's no-action

decision). Compare Navaho Nation v. Dep't of Health & Human

Servs., 285 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (Chevron deference to

interpretation in letter denying application); Pesquera Mares Australes, Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372, 1379-82 (Fed. Cir.

2001) (Chevron deference to interpretation made during antidumping investigation); American Wildlands v. Browner, 260 F.3d 1192,

1195 (10th Cir. 2001) (Chevron deference to interpretation expressed in EPA letter), with Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1155-56

(9th Cir. 2001) (denying Chevron deference to interpretation in

EPA's approval of a revised air quality plan); U.S. Freightways

Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 270 F.3d 1137, 1141-42 (7th

Cir. 2001) (declining to defer to interpretation of tax code in IRS

audit).

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 7 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

purposes. Although the company asserted that its rifles had

no use other than sport, the Director pointed out that such

rifles had increasingly been used in the commission of violent

crimes.4

Springfield also complains that BATF construed "sporting

purposes" too narrowly, excluding "various forms of competitions, informal target shooting, plinking, and recreation."

Brief for Appellant at 20. "The Act makes clear," the company also tells us, "that competitions in general, including with

semiautomatic military rifles, are sporting purposes." Id. at

18. We see nothing so clear in the statute. Congress did not

define "sporting purposes." The consistent position of BATF

has been that s 925(d)(3) comprehends only particular uses of

a firearm that have "attained general recognition as having a

'sporting purpose,' " Gilbert Equip. Co. v. Higgins, 709

F. Supp. 1071, 1075 (S.D. Ala. 1989), and only activities that

are traditional sports. Otherwise, the prospect of using a

firearm to shoot at bottles in the backyard or tin cans in the

woods would qualify it for importation, which of course would

mean that all firearms must be allowed into the country.

Such "plinking" therefore has long been considered "primarily a pastime," not a sport within s 925(d)(3)'s meaning. See,

e.g., Treasury Department Study Ex. 6, reprinting the 1968

report of the meeting of the Firearms Advisory Panel; ATF

Working Group 9-11. We find BATF's interpretation of

"sporting purposes," in this respect, to be persuasive.5

__________

4 The 1998 study reported an increase in the criminal use of rifles

with large capacity magazines. In 1991, police submitted trace

requests for only seven such rifles. In 1997, there were 1,024 trace

requests for such rifles. Treasury Department Study 33.

5 Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the prison term for a

felon who possesses a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(1),

may be reduced if the weapon was "solely for lawful sporting

purposes." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines s 2K2.1(b)(2) (2001). The

Third Circuit held that a defendant possessing guns solely for

plinking "at cans, bottles, and the like in trash dumps or as they

were floating by in a river," meets this standard. United States v.

Bossinger, 12 F.3d 28, 29 (3d Cir. 1993). The Bossinger decision

does not interpret s 925(d)(3) and the Sentencing Guidelines do not

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 8 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Springfield also believes its rifles are used for "sporting

purposes" in "practical shooting" events. Practical shooting,

according to BATF, "involves moving, identifying, and engaging multiple targets and delivering a number of shots rapidly.

In doing this, practical shooting participants test their defensive skills as they encounter props, including walls and barricades, with full or partial targets, 'no-shoots,' steel reaction

targets, movers, and others to challenge them." Treasury

Department Study 17 n.48. BATF analogized these events to

a "police/combat-style competition" which has never been

considered a sporting purpose. See Gilbert Equip. Co., 709

F. Supp. at 1075-76, 1077. Springfield provided no information about practical shooting to BATF. Its submission to the

agency in response to the proposed revocation of its permits

did not even mention the activity. While it may be that

"sporting purpose" is not a static concept, see Gun South,

Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 864 (11th Cir. 1989), particularly

in view of the "generally recognized" requirement, neither

BATF nor this court have received any information demonstrating that a rifle must accept large magazines of ammunition if it is to be used at a practical shooting competition.

Nor has Springfield demonstrated that its rifles, as currently

designed, are "generally recognized" as "particularly suitable

for or readily adaptable to" practical shooting.6

Springfield's final point is that it was arbitrary and capricious for BATF to bar importation of firearms it had in the

past allowed to be imported. But agency views may change.

See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841,

852 (D.C. Cir. 1970). We said earlier that the record contains

__________

contain the qualifier "generally recognized" found in the provision

before us.

6 Springfield argues that because s 925(d)(3) bars the importation

of "surplus military firearms" for "sporting purposes," BATF can

grant permits for the importation of military firearms which are not

"surplus." Brief for Appellant at 23. This is true, but not sufficient to reverse the agency. Springfield's rifles must still be "of a

type that" "is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or

readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 9 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

no information indicating why BATF had thought that

Springfield's two rifles satisfied s 925(d)(3). See supra note

1. All we know is that from 1989 to 1997, when the temporary ban took effect, a rifle's ability to accept a large,

military-style magazine did not automatically disqualify it for

importation. BATF fully explained why it has now decided

that this particular military feature found in Springfield's

rifles is of considerable significance. The courts may require

only "a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and

standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored." Id.; see also Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983); Am.

Trucking Ass'ns v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 387

U.S. 397, 416 (1967). The BATF Director's decision revoking

Springfield's permits met that standard.7

Affirmed.

__________

7 We have considered and rejected Springfield's other arguments.

They occasion no need for a written opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(b).

USCA Case #00-5409 Document #683514 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 10 of 10