Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-12-05009/USCOURTS-caDC-12-05009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Foothills Firearms, LLC
Appellant
J&G Sales, Ltd.
Appellant
B. Todd Jones
Appellee
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
Appellee
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Amicus Curiae for Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 9, 2013 Decided May 31, 2013 

No. 12-5009 

THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., 

J&G SALES, LTD. AND FOOTHILLS FIREARMS, LLC, 

APPELLANTS

v. 

B. TODD JONES, ACTING DIRECTOR,

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS & EXPLOSIVES, 

APPELLEE

Consolidated with 12-5010 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:11-cv-01401) 

Richard E. Gardiner argued the cause for appellants J&G 

Sales, Ltd. and Foothills Firearms, LLC. Stephen P. Halbrook

was on brief. 

James B. Vogts argued the cause for appellant National 

Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. Andrew A. Lothson was on 

brief. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 1 of 30
2 

Michael S. Raab, Attorney, United States Department of 

Justice, argued the cause for the appellee. Stuart F. Delery, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen Jr., 

United States Attorney, and Anisha S. Dasgupta, Attorney, 

were on brief. 

Steven G. Reade was on brief for the amicus curiae The 

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of the 

appellee. 

Before: HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and 

EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. 

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In July 

2011, in an effort to reduce gun trafficking from the United 

States to Mexico, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a demand 

letter under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A) to a number of federal 

firearms licensees (FFLs) in four southwest border states: 

Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The demand 

letter requires each recipient making two or more sales of a 

specific type of firearm to the same buyer within five business 

days to file a report with ATF. The report must include 

information identifying the FFL, the customer and the 

firearm. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., J&G 

Sales, Ltd. and Foothills Firearms, LLC (collectively, NSSF), 

challenge the demand letter, arguing that ATF lacks statutory 

authority to issue it and that ATF acted in an arbitrary and 

capricious manner in selecting which FFLs are subject to it. 

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment to ATF. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 2 of 30
3 

I. Regulatory/Factual Background 

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 

Stat. 1213 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq.) 

(GCA), requires anyone who wishes to “engage in the 

business of . . . dealing in firearms” to obtain a license from 

ATF. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).1

 Licensees are known as FFLs and 

must comply with various provisions of the GCA, including 

recordkeeping requirements. See id. § 923(g). In 1968, the 

United States Department of the Treasury2

 promulgated 

regulations to implement certain GCA recordkeeping 

requirements. RSM, Inc. v. Buckles, 254 F.3d 61, 64 (4th Cir. 

2001). One requirement provided that an FFL “shall, when 

required by letter issued by [the Department of the Treasury], 

and until notified to the contrary . . . submit on Form 4483, 

Report of Firearms Transactions, for the periods and at the 

times specified in the letter . . . all record information required 

by this subpart, or such lesser record information as the . . . 

letter may specify.” 27 C.F.R. § 178.126(a) (1986). 

In 1986, the Congress amended the GCA via the Firearm 

Owners’ Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 

(1986) (FOPA). FOPA “was intended to reduce the regulatory 

burden on law-abiding firearms owners without incapacitating 

 1

 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to statutes or regulations 

are to the most recent version. 

2

 “The GCA originally granted the Secretary of the Treasury 

the authority to issue licenses. The Secretary delegated this 

authority to [ATF]. As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

the licensing authority was transferred to the Department of Justice. 

The Attorney General of the United States, in turn, delegated the 

licensing authority to the newly reconfigured Bureau.” Blaustein & 

Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, 365 F.3d 281, 283 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1052 (2005). 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 3 of 30
4 

[ ]ATF’s ability to combat violations of the firearms laws.” 

RSM, 254 F.3d at 64. FOPA authorized the Attorney General 

to promulgate implementing rules3

 but expressly prohibited 

any rule establishing a firearms registry of any kind 

maintained by “the United States or any State or any political 

subdivision thereof.” 18 U.S.C. § 926(a).4

In February 2008, William Hoover (Hoover), the ATF 

Assistant Director for Field Operations, testified before a 

subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives 

regarding an “increased incidence of firearms trafficking to 

Mexico” from the United States, which “facilitate[d] the drug 

trade” and threatened safety “on both sides of the border.” 

Statement of William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field 

Operations of ATF Before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the W. 

Hemisphere (Feb. 7, 2008) (Joint Appendix (JA) 529-30), 

available at http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2008/02/ 

020708-testimony-atf-ad-hoover-sw-border.html. Hoover 

explained that, while criminals had previously used .38 

caliber handguns as their “weapon[ ] of choice,” they were 

developing a preference for “higher quality, more powerful 

weapons” such as the Colt AR-15 .223 caliber assault rifle 

and the AK-47 7.62mm caliber assault rifle. Id. (JA 531). 

Hoover believed that ATF could best combat the trafficking 

by developing better intelligence, but noted that ATF had 

difficulty obtaining such intelligence because it was difficult 

to “trace” firearms recovered in Mexico. See id. JA 531-32.

 3

 FOPA also codified at least one existing rule, 27 C.F.R. 

§ 178.126(a) (1986), in the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(a), 

quoted infra at Part II.A. 

4

 FOPA preserves the Attorney General’s “authority to inquire 

into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal 

investigation.” 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 4 of 30
5 

Tracing entails “tracking the movement of a firearm 

involved in a crime from its first sale by the manufacturer or 

importer through the distribution chain to the non-licensed 

purchaser.” Decl. of Arthur Herbert ¶ 5, Nat’l Shooting Sports 

Found., Inc. v. Jones, No. 11-1401 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2011) 

(JA 43). Law enforcement agencies use tracing “to link a 

suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation; to identify 

potential traffickers; and to detect patterns in the sources and 

kinds of firearms that are used in crime.” Id. In other words, 

tracing serves as a valuable tool for investigating drug crimes. 

Id. ¶ 7 (JA 44). Tracing begins when a law enforcement 

officer recovers a firearm used in a crime and makes a “trace 

request” by entering the firearm’s identifying information—

e.g., serial number, caliber, make and model—into a database 

called the “ATF Firearms Tracing System.” Id. ¶ 6 (JA 44). 

ATF compares the identifying information to other firearms 

transactions records to “determine[ ] the firearm’s entry point 

into U.S. commerce and its path through the distribution 

chain.” Id. ¶ 7 (JA 44); see also id. ¶¶ 7-10, 39-42 (JA 44-45, 

52-53). Because FOPA limits ATF’s ability to collect and 

maintain firearms transactions records, however, most of the 

records are kept by individual FFLs and not routinely 

provided to ATF. See, e.g., J&G Sales Ltd. v. Truscott, 473 

F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir.) (“Rather than submitting all of 

their transaction records to the Bureau, FFLs keep their 

records on their own premises. . . . in part because [FOPA] . . 

. . ban[s] . . . creating a centralized registration system . . . . 

”), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 887 (2007); see also Decl. of Arthur 

Herbert ¶ 8 (JA 44-45) (“[An FFL’s] records are not routinely 

provided to ATF . . . . ”). Therefore, ATF often “relies upon 

FFL records when it seeks to trace a firearm.” J&G Sales, 473 

F.3d at 1045. Specifically, ATF “must contact the 

manufacturer(s) or importer, then the wholesaler, and then the 

[FFL], who then provides [within twenty-four hours, see 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(7)] information about to whom the firearm 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 5 of 30
6 

was sold.” Decl. of Arthur Herbert ¶ 40 (JA 52). Tracing 

typically takes “ten to twelve days on average to complete.” 

Id.

The GCA permits ATF to maintain records of firearms 

transactions in certain circumstances. For example, if an FFL 

goes out of business, the GCA generally requires that the FFL 

deliver his records to ATF.5

 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(4). The GCA 

further requires that an FFL report to ATF sales of two or 

more “pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and 

revolvers” to the same buyer within five business days; the 

report is due by the close of business on the day the multiple 

sale occurs. Id. § 923(g)(3)(A). Additionally, the GCA 

permits ATF to send demand letters to FFLs to obtain “record 

information” therein specified. Id. § 923(g)(5)(A). 

If ATF is able to match a trace request with the records it 

maintains, it can complete a trace request more quickly. See 

Decl. of Arthur Herbert ¶¶ 39, 41-42 (JA 52-53). For 

example, “[m]ultiple sales reports [of handguns pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A)] are entered into ATF’s Firearms 

Tracing System . . . . When a firearm is traced, it is checked 

against these reports. A match expedites tracing because ATF 

does not need to contact all active FFLs in the distribution 

chain (e.g., manufacturers and distributors), but instead only 

needs to contact the retail dealer.” Id. ¶ 41 (JA 52-53). 

Therefore, when ATF conducts a trace pertaining to records in 

its own possession, it can generate more timely and valuable 

investigative leads for law enforcement. Id. ¶¶ 42-45 (JA 53-

54). 

 5

 An FFL going out of business does not deliver his records to 

ATF if (1) he is succeeded by a new FFL; or (2) “where State law 

or local ordinance requires the delivery of records to other [sic] 

responsible authority.” 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(4). 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 6 of 30
7 

As noted, ATF struggles to trace firearms recovered from 

gun trafficking operations into Mexico. Specifically, Mexican 

cartels have made long guns (i.e. rifles and shotguns) their 

new “weapons of choice.” U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF 

THE INSPECTOR GEN., REVIEW OF ATF’S PROJECT 

GUNRUNNER iv (Nov. 2010) (JA 382) (hereinafter OIG

REPORT). Because—unlike multiple sales of pistols—there is 

no requirement that an FFL report multiple sales of long guns, 

however, ATF usually cannot use its own records to conduct a 

trace request involving Mexican gun trafficking. See id. (JA 

382); U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, FIREARMS 

TRAFFICKING: U.S. EFFORTS TO COMBAT ARMS TRAFFICKING 

TO MEXICO FACE PLANNING AND COORDINATION 

CHALLENGES 28 (June 2009) (JA 582) (hereinafter GAO

REPORT). Thus, a June 2009 report prepared by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding Mexican 

arms trafficking recommended that ATF investigate 

“approaches to address the challenges law enforcement 

officials raised in this report regarding the constraints on the 

collection of data that inhibit the ability of law enforcement to 

conduct timely investigations.” GAO REPORT at 59 (JA 613). 

Similarly, a May 2010 report by the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) of the United States Department of Justice 

found, inter alia, “the lack of a reporting requirement for 

multiple sales of long guns . . . hinders ATF’s ability to 

disrupt the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.” OIG

REPORT at iv (JA 382). The OIG report explained that (1) “the 

percentage of crime guns recovered in Mexico that were long 

guns steadily increased each year from 20 percent in FY 2004 

to 48 percent in FY 2009,” id. at 38 (JA 428); (2) “long guns 

tend to have a shorter time-to-crime than handguns, and 

shorter time-to-crime intervals generate more valuable leads 

for ATF,” id.; and (3) “Mexican cartels are obtaining long 

guns in multiple sales,” id. It concluded that “mandatory 

reporting of long gun multiple sales could help ATF identify, 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 7 of 30
8 

investigate, and refer for prosecution individuals who illegally 

traffic long guns into Mexico,” id. at 39-40 (JA 429-30), and 

recommended that ATF “explore options for seeking a 

requirement for reporting multiple sales of long guns,” id. at 

40, 94 (JA 430, 484). ATF responded that it “would explore 

the full range of options” but that some options “may require 

a change to the Gun Control Act.” Id. at 127 (JA 517). 

On December 17, 2010, ATF announced a proposed 

information collection program requiring each FFL to “report 

multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the [FFL] sells 

or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five 

consecutive business days with the following characteristics: 

(a) [s]emi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the 

ability to accept a detachable magazine.” Agency Information 

Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, 75 Fed. Reg. 

79,021, 79,021 (Dec. 17, 2010). After a sixty-day comment 

period, ATF received 12,680 comments (8,928 in support and 

3,752 in opposition). Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested: Report 

of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles, 76 

Fed. Reg. 24,058, 24,058 (Apr. 29, 2011). ATF subsequently 

extended the comment period for an additional thirty days and 

clarified that the multiple-reporting requirement applied only 

to FFLs classified as licensed “dealers and/or pawnbrokers” 

located in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. Id.

Accordingly, in July 2011, ATF sent a demand letter to 

each FFL classified as a “licensed dealer[ or] pawnbroker[ ]”6

 6

 There are eleven categories of FFLs. See United States 

Department of Justice, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives, ATF Online—Statistics—Listing of Federal 

Firearms Licensees, http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/ffl-list.html. 

Type 01 is a dealer in firearms other than destructive devices. Id.

Type 02 is a pawnbroker in firearms other than destructive devices. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 8 of 30
9 

and located “in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.” 

Letter from Charles Houser, Chief, Nat’l Tracing Ctr., to Fed. 

Firearms Licensees 1 (Jul. 12, 2011) (JA 32) (hereinafter July 

2011 Demand Letter). The demand letter stated in pertinent 

part: 

You must submit to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reports of multiple sales 

or other dispositions whenever, at one time or during 

any five consecutive business days, you sell or 

otherwise dispose of two or more semi-automatic rifles 

capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a 

caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber) to 

an unlicensed person. You are required to report all 

such sales that occur on or after August 14, 2011. You 

must continue reporting multiple sales for the rifles 

subject to this demand letter until we provide written 

notice to stop. 

The required information must be submitted on ATF 

Form 3310.12, Report of Multiple Sale or Other 

Disposition of Certain Rifles, no later than the close of 

business on the day the multiple sale or other 

disposition takes place. 

Id.

National Shooting Sports Foundation, J&G Sales and 

Foothills Firearms filed separate actions against ATF on 

August 3, 2011, and the district court subsequently 

consolidated them, Order Consolidating Cases, Nat’l Shooting 

Sports Found., Inc. v. Jones, 11-cv-1401 (Aug. 18, 2011). 

NSSF sought, inter alia, to enjoin ATF from requiring the 

 

Id. The July 2011 demand letter is directed to Type 01 and Type 02 

FFLs. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 9 of 30
10 

submission of the information requested by the demand letter 

and to require ATF to destroy any information already 

submitted. Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., Inc. v. Jones, 840 F. 

Supp. 2d 310, 312 (D.D.C. 2012). On January 13, 2012, the 

district court granted ATF’s motion for summary judgment 

and denied NSSF’s cross-motions for summary judgment. Id.

at 323. NSSF timely appealed. Our jurisdiction arises under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

II. 

NSSF’s primary challenge is that ATF lacks statutory 

authority to issue the demand letter for multiple reasons. 

Alternatively, it argues that ATF arbitrarily and capriciously 

failed to tailor the demand letter.7

 We reject both arguments. 

A. Section 923(g)(5)(A) 

NSSF first argues that ATF’s demand letter authority, 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A), does not authorize ATF to issue the 

letter issued in July 2011. We review ATF’s interpretation of 

the GCA under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See Resolution 

Trust Corp. v. Walde, 18 F.3d 943, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1994) 

(applying Chevron to construction of administrative subpoena 

powers). 

Under Chevron, we ask first “whether Congress has 

directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” in which case 

we as well as the agency “must give effect to the 

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 

 7

 National Shooting Sports Foundation’s brief in this court 

asserts that ATF’s action is arbitrary and capricious while the brief 

submitted by J&G Sales and Foothills Firearms asserts that ATF 

lacks statutory authority to issue the demand letter. Each brief 

incorporates the arguments of the other. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 10 of 30
11 

U.S. at 842-43. If the “statute is silent or ambiguous with 

respect to the specific issue,” however, we move to the second 

step and defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it is 

“based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id.

Section 923(g)(5)(A) of the GCA provides: 

Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by 

the Attorney General, and until notified to the contrary 

in writing by the Attorney General, submit on a form 

specified by the Attorney General, for periods and at the 

times specified in such letter, all record information 

required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record 

information as the Attorney General in such letter may 

specify. 

18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A) (emphasis added). NSSF argues that 

the demand letter is unlawful because the information it 

requests is not “record information required to be kept by this 

chapter or such lesser record information.” We disagree. 

“[T]his chapter” is Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United 

States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A)—part of Chapter 44—

provides that an FFL must “maintain such records of 

importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other 

disposition of firearms at his place of business for such 

period, and in such form, as the Attorney General may by 

regulations prescribe.” 27 C.F.R. § 478.124(a) provides in 

turn that an FFL must record firearms transactions with nonFFLs (i.e. customers) on a Form 4473. The customer initially 

provides certain identifying information8

 on the Form 4473. 

 8

 Specifically, the transferee must disclose his “name, sex, 

residence address (including county or similar political 

subdivision), date and place of birth; height, weight and race of the 

transferee; the transferee’s country of citizenship; the transferee’s 

INS–issued alien number or admission number; the transferee’s 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 11 of 30
12 

Id. § 478.124(c)(1), (d), (e). Additionally, the FFL must 

record on the Form 4473 “the name of the manufacturer, the 

name of the importer (if any), the type, model, caliber or 

gauge, and the serial number of the firearm.” Id. 

§ 478.124(c)(4). The FFL is required to keep these forms in 

either “alphabetical (by name of purchaser), chronological (by 

date of disposition), or numerical (by transaction serial 

number) order.” Id. § 478.124(b). 

The FFL must also create a “Firearms Acquisition and 

Disposition Record.” Upon acquiring a firearm, the FFL must 

record “the date of receipt, the name and address or the name 

and license number of the person from whom received, the 

name of the manufacturer and importer (if any), the model, 

serial number, type, and the caliber or gauge.” Id. 

§ 478.125(e). Similarly, no later than seven days after selling 

the firearm to a non-FFL, the FFL must record “the date of 

the sale . . . the name and address of the [customer] . . . or the 

firearms transaction record, Form 4473, serial number if the 

licensed dealer transferring the firearm serially numbers the 

Forms 4473 and files them numerically.” Id.

 NSSF urges that the July 2011 demand letter requires the 

FFL to report information beyond what he is currently 

required to record. As noted, it requires the FFL to submit 

“reports of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever, at 

one time or during any five consecutive business days, you 

sell or otherwise dispose of two or more semi-automatic rifles 

 

State of residence; and certification by the transferee that the 

transferee is not prohibited by the Act from transporting or shipping 

a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce or receiving a firearm 

which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 

commerce or possessing a firearm in or affecting commerce.” 27 

C.F.R. § 478.124(c)(1). 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 12 of 30
13 

capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber 

greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber) to an unlicensed 

person [i.e. a non-FFL].” July 2011 Demand Letter at 1 (JA 

32). NSSF contends that the demand letter requires that an 

FFL submit three types of information the GCA does not 

currently require FFLs to record: (1) “the firearm’s type of 

action” (semi-automatic); (2) “the firearm’s type of 

ammunition feeding source” (capable of accepting a 

detachable magazine); and (3) “the number of days between 

sales of rifles to the same person.” Opening Br. for J&G 

Sales, Ltd. and Foothills Firearms, LLC 12 (hereinafter FF 

Opening Br.). 

 We disagree. The GCA unambiguously authorizes the 

demand letter and thus our inquiry ends at Chevron step one. 

NSSF’s argument confuses the conditions precedent to 

submission with the information submitted. The demand letter 

provides that, if the conditions precedent are satisfied—that 

is, the FFL has sold “two or more semi-automatic rifles 

capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber 

greater than .22 . . . to [the same] unlicensed person”—then 

the FFL has a duty to submit the information requested on 

Form 3310.12. But Form 3310.12 does not require that the 

FFL report the rifle’s type of action or the rifle’s ammunition 

feeding source or the number of days between sales to the 

same person. Rather, Form 3310.12 requires that the FFL 

report basic identifying information about the FFL and the 

customer as well as the rifle’s serial number, manufacturer, 

importer, model, caliber and sale date—all information 

“required to be kept” under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 923(g)(5)(A), and its implementing regulations. See Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Form 

3310.12, https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f3310-12.pdf (JA 34). By limiting its applicability in this 

manner, the demand letter requires information only about a 

limited subset of firearms transactions: those that satisfy the 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 13 of 30
14 

conditions precedent.9

 In other words, the July 2011 demand 

letter’s conditions precedent are not being used to require 

additional information from FFLs, but instead limit the scope 

of the information demanded. 

 NSSF maintains that ATF’s interpretation of the demand 

letter is flawed because an FFL cannot determine, using only 

information he is required to record, whether certain rifle 

sales must be reported. Even assuming arguendo that such a 

gap could invalidate the demand letter, NSSF nevertheless 

fails to show that an FFL cannot use information he already is 

required to record to determine whether certain rifle sales 

satisfy the conditions precedent. First, in determining the 

number of business days between sales to the same person, 

the FFL can examine both the sale date and the customer 

name, information he is required to record pursuant to 27 

C.F.R. § 478.124. NSSF responds that the search could be too 

costly for certain FFLs. It relies on 27 C.F.R. § 478.124(b), 

which permits the FFL to retain his Form 4473s in 

alphabetical, chronological or numerical order; NSSF argues 

that, if an FFL chooses to retain his Form 4473s in some order 

other than chronological, searching the records would be 

 9

 NSSF also complains that FFLs ordinarily have seven days 

from the transaction date to record the sale or disposition of a 

firearm in a Firearms Acquisition and Disposition Record, 27 

C.F.R. § 478.125(e), and that, because the demand letter requires 

that FFLs report multiple sales by the close of business on the day 

of the second sale, it contravenes section 478.125(e). The demand 

letter, however, does not require that FFLs record any information 

in a Firearms Acquisition and Disposition Record; it simply 

requires that FFLs report certain sales. NSSF thus improperly 

conflates the recording requirement of section 478.125(e) with the 

requirement that an FFL respond to a demand letter set forth in 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A). 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 14 of 30
15 

particularly difficult. Searching records for multiple sales of a 

particular type of firearm to the same customer, however, is 

nothing new for FFLs. Since 1975, an FFL who sells “two or 

more pistols or revolvers [to the same person] at one time, or 

during any five consecutive business days” has been required 

to submit a report to ATF similar to the one at issue. See 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A); Pistols and Revolvers; Reporting 

Requirement on Multiple Sales, 40 Fed. Reg. 19,201 (May 2, 

1975). The fact that an FFL chooses to keep his records in 

alphabetical or numerical order does not mean that the FFL 

can complain if his choice may not always be the least 

burdensome. Moreover, there is nothing preventing an FFL 

from maintaining records in a less burdensome (in this case, 

chronological) manner. 

 Second, NSSF fails to explain why an FFL cannot 

determine a rifle’s type of action and ammunition feeding 

source using his record of the rifle’s serial number, 

manufacturer and/or model name. To argue, as NSSF does, 

that an FFL—who purchases and sells firearms for a living—

would price and sell rifles without knowing its type of action 

and ammunition feeding source blinks reality. And even 

assuming an FFL could somehow not determine the 

characteristics of his own rifles, ATF provides a web site and 

telephone number that the FFL can use to obtain assistance in 

determining whether a rifle is “semi-automatic” and “capable 

of accepting a detachable magazine.” See Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Q&As for the Report of 

Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles, 

http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/080911-qamultiple-rifles.pdf. While NSSF argues that it is possible that 

a rifle has no model designation, see 27 C.F.R. 

§ 478.92(a)(1)(ii)(A) (manufacturer must engrave on each 

firearm “[t]he model, if such designation has been made” 

(emphasis added)), there is no record evidence of a rifle with 

no model name, nor does the record evince that the absence of 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 15 of 30
16 

a model name causes or could cause the confusion of which 

NSSF complains.10 In any event, NSSF does not show that an 

FFL could not determine the type of action or ammunition 

feeding source of a rifle lacking a model name from the 

manufacturer information the FFL does possess. 

B. Section 923(g)(1)(A) and Legislative History 

NSSF argues that the demand letter violates 18 U.S.C. 

§ 923(g)(1)(A)’s requirement that an FFL “shall not be 

required to submit to the Attorney General reports and 

information with respect to such records and the contents 

thereof, except as expressly required by this section.” While 

section 923(g)(5)(A) expressly grants ATF the authority to 

issue a demand letter, NSSF argues that ATF is using this 

authority to circumvent more specific provisions contained in 

section 923(g). See, e.g., Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 

U.S. 395, 407 (1991) (“A specific provision controls over one 

of more general application.”). We disagree. 

NSSF first relies on section 923(g)(1)(A) and (B). 

Section 923(g)(1)(A) provides in part that ATF may inspect 

an FFL’s premises if it obtains a warrant by showing 

“reasonable cause to believe a violation of [the GCA] has 

 10 At oral argument, NSSF’s counsel conceded that there is no 

record evidence establishing that the absence of a model name 

causes confusion: 

THE COURT: . . . . There’s no record evidence in this case 

from you indicating this confusion about model number and 

what a model number means, right? 

MR. GARDINER: . . . [T]here is no evidence in the record 

concerning that, that’s correct . . . . 

Oral Argument at 36:15-36:28, Nat’l Shooting Sports Found. v. 

Jones, No. 12-5009 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 2013). 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 16 of 30
17 

occurred and that evidence thereof may be found on such 

premises.” 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A). Similarly, under 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(B)(i) and (iii), ATF may “inspect or 

examine the inventory and records of a[n FFL] without such 

reasonable cause or warrant . . . in the course of a reasonable 

inquiry during the course of a criminal investigation of a 

person or persons other than the [FFL]” or if “required for 

determining the disposition of one or more particular firearms 

in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.” NSSF 

contends that, by issuing the July 2011 demand letter, ATF 

can “circumvent the limits of [the above-discussed 

provisions] by sending a demand letter for records without 

there being either ‘reasonable cause’ to believe a violation has 

occurred or without there being any criminal investigation.” 

FF Opening Br. 30. In so contending, NSSF erroneously 

conflates provisions that apply in two different contexts. The 

inspection provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A) and (B) 

apply to entry onto an FFL’s premises. By contrast, section 

923(g)(5)(A) simply authorizes ATF to require the FFL to 

submit information. Further, two sister circuits, addressing 

challenges to other demand letters sent by ATF to FFLs, 

squarely rejected this argument, explaining that “section 

923(g)(1)(B) is aimed at preventing warrantless, on-site

searches of FFLs’ records. In contrast, issuance of a letter 

under section 923(g)(5)(A) does not involve the entry of 

[ ]ATF agents onto an FFL’s premises.” RSM, 254 F.3d at 66 

(emphasis added); J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1050 (“When the 

Bureau merely sends a demand letter . . . , no physical 

intrusion whatsoever occurs. This is a difference that 

matters.”). 

Next, NSSF relies on section 923(g)(7) which requires an 

FFL to respond within 24 hours to a trace request aimed at 

“determining the disposition of 1 or more firearms in the 

course of a bona fide criminal investigation.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 923(g)(7). It argues that, by issuing a demand letter, ATF 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 17 of 30
18 

can “circumvent the ‘bona fide criminal investigation’ 

requirement . . . and compel information to be reported within 

less than 24 hours.” FF Opening Br. 31. We agree with our 

sister circuits’ rejection of this argument, to wit, section 

923(g)(7)’s specific trace request requirements do not purport 

to bear on section 923(g)(5)(A)’s demand letter requirements. 

RSM, 254 F.3d at 66 (“Section 923(g)(7) does not purport 

either to address or restrict [ ]ATF’s section 923(g)(5)(A) 

authority to issue letters. Instead, it establishes the duties of 

FFLs when they receive a trace request.”); J&G Sales, 473 

F.3d at 1050 (“[Section] 923(g)(7) imposes speedy reporting 

requirements on FFLs in the context of criminal 

investigations, and neither explicitly nor implicitly serves to 

limit the Bureau’s power under § 923(g)(5)(A).”). 

NSSF also relies on section 923(g)(3)(A) which requires 

an FFL to “prepare a report of multiple sales or other 

dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes 

of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, 

two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of 

pistols and revolvers totalling [sic] two or more.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 923(g)(3)(A). It argues that, because the Congress expressly 

imposed a multiple reporting requirement for handguns only, 

it intended to preclude multiple sales reporting for other types 

of firearms. In support, NSSF cites a number of expressio 

unius est exclusio alterius cases. See, e.g., Russello v. United 

States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). The Ninth Circuit rejected a 

similar argument, explaining that “[s]imply because some 

provisions of § 923 impose specific duties upon FFLs to 

respond to certain requests within a specified time frame and 

to provide record information sua sponte does not mean that 

the Bureau is prohibited from seeking further FFL record 

information by demand letter.” J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1050. 

We agree. While expressio unius may be useful in certain 

circumstances, it is “not consistently applied” if it “disregards 

[ ] other plausible explanations for an omission.” Clinchfield 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 18 of 30
19 

Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 895 

F.2d 773, 779 (D.C. Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 498 

U.S. 849 (1990); Cheney R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 

(D.C. Cir.) (“Whatever its general force, we think [expressio 

unius] an especially feeble helper in an administrative setting, 

where Congress is presumed to have left to reasonable agency 

discretion questions that it has not directly resolved.”), cert. 

denied, 498 U.S. 985 (1990). Again, NSSF uses a statutory 

requirement that all FFLs report multiple handgun sales to 

argue that another requirement—giving ATF the authority to 

require additional reporting upon request—violates 

congressional intent. Simply because the Congress imposes a 

duty in one circumstance does not mean that it has necessarily 

foreclosed the agency from imposing another duty in a 

different circumstance. Instead, the “Congress may have 

meant that in the second context the choice should be up to 

the agency.” Clinchfield, 895 F.2d at 779. In section 

923(g)(5)(A), the Congress authorized ATF to require 

additional reporting beyond the reporting required in section 

923(g)(3)(A). 

In sum, although section 923(g)(1)(A) prevents ATF 

from directing an FFL to submit records “except as expressly 

required by this section,” the GCA expressly grants authority 

under section 923(g)(5)(A) to require disclosure of 

information via a demand letter. As the Ninth Circuit 

explained, “[i]t is certainly true that § 923(g)(1)(A) limits the 

Bureau’s ability to procure information from FFLs to the 

express requirements of § 923, but it does not eviscerate the 

content of § 923(g)(5)(A).” J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1049. 

 Finally, NSSF contends that the legislative history of 

FOPA shows that the Congress intended section 923(g)(5)(A) 

to be limited to “(1) information from FFLs who were in 

violation of the law, and (2) information from any FFLs about 

specific firearms dispositions necessary for bona fide criminal 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 19 of 30
20 

investigations.” FF Opening Br. 38. Our sister circuits found 

no need to analyze legislative history once they concluded 

that the text of section 923(g)(5)(A) and its surrounding 

provisions plainly foreclosed arguments similar to those 

NSSF makes to us. J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1050 (“Because 

we find that—even after considering § 923(g)(5)(A) in its 

broader context—the statute is clear, we need not address 

J&G’s exhaustive discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 923’s legislative 

history.”); Blaustein & Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, 365 F.3d 281, 

288 n.15 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Bob’s Gun Shop included in its 

briefs considerable discussion of the legislative history of 

§ 923(g)(5)(A) and § 926(a), which it claims shows that 

Congress intended to limit the use of demand letters to 

criminal investigations and to noncompliant FFLs. Because 

we find the statute unambiguous on its face, we do not resort 

to legislative history to determine what Congress intended its 

enactments to mean.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1052 (2005). 

We likewise need not resort to the legislative history. “[W]e 

do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that 

is clear.” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48 

(1994). 

C. Section 926(a) and Creation of a “National Firearms 

Registry” 

NSSF also contends that the July 2011 demand letter 

violates section 926(a), which provides that the Attorney 

General “may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are 

necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 18 

U.S.C. § 926(a). That section goes on to say: 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of 

the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act 

[of 1986] may require that records required to be 

maintained under this chapter or any portion of the 

contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to 

a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 20 of 30
21 

States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, 

nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms 

owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be 

established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts 

the [Attorney General’s] authority to inquire into the 

disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal 

investigation. 

Id. NSSF’s argument fails under the plain text of this 

provision. Section 926(a) applies to a “rule or regulation” that 

is “prescribed after the date of the enactment of the [FOPA].” 

The words “rule or regulation” are not mere surplusage; in 

fact, section 926(b) explains that “rule or regulation” refers to 

rules created after “ninety days public notice” while giving 

“interested parties opportunity for hearing.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 926(b). The demand letter is not a rule or regulation and, 

therefore, section 926(a) does not apply. See J&G Sales, 473 

F.3d at 1051; RSM, 254 F.3d at 66. Furthermore, the 

authority on which ATF relies to issue the demand letter, 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A), is itself a statutory provision, not a 

regulation. RSM, 254 F.3d at 66 (rejecting identical argument 

because “Section 923(g)(5)(A) is a statute, not a rule or 

regulation”). Even if we ignored the difference between a 

statute and a regulation, section 923(g)(5)(A) was enacted as 

part of FOPA and thus was not “prescribed after the date of 

the enactment of” FOPA. 

NSSF also argues that the July 2011 demand letter 

unlawfully creates a national firearms registry. ATF’s demand 

letter authority is not unlimited. We agree with our sister 

circuits that the Congress intended to prevent ATF from 

“establish[ing] a national firearms registry” by “issu[ing] 

limitless demand letters under section 923(g)(5)(A) in a 

backdoor effort to avoid section 926(a)’s protections for lawabiding firearms owners.” RSM, 254 F.3d at 67; see also J&G 

Sales, 473 F.3d at 1045. For example, since 1978, the 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 21 of 30
22 

Congress has enacted an annual appropriations rider 

prohibiting the Government from spending appropriated funds 

on salaries or administrative expenses “in connection with 

consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of 

Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and 

disposition of firearms maintained by [FFLs].” Consolidated 

and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. 

No. 112-55, § 4, tit. II, 125 Stat. 552, 609 (2011); see also

Executive Office Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 95-429, tit. 

I, 92 Stat. 1001, 1002 (1978).11 Similarly, section 926(a) 

 11 NSSF argues that the appropriations rider makes unlawful 

the demand letter because the demand letter requires information to 

be sent to “ATF’s National Tracing Center” and thus requires the 

centralization of records. FF Opening Br. 44 (emphasis in original). 

The Congress enacted section 923(g)(5) in 1986, after enacting the 

first appropriations rider, so it could not have intended to authorize 

the record collection in section 923(g)(5) while simultaneously 

prohibiting it. See RSM, 254 F.3d at 68 (“Congress has amended the 

Gun Control Act several times, most notably with FOPA, since it 

originally passed the appropriations rider in 1978. Were we to 

adopt plaintiffs’ view of the rider, it would render several 

provisions of FOPA inoperative. When it passed FOPA, Congress 

clearly envisioned some sort of collection of firearms records, so 

long as it was incidental to some other statutory function 

specifically delegated to [ ]ATF.” (citations omitted)); see also 

J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1045 (“Despite this ban on creating a 

centralized registration system, Congress has authorized the Bureau 

to maintain at least two sets of transaction records.”). In fact, the 

rider was “first passed in response to a proposed [ ]ATF regulation 

which would have required all FFLs to submit a quarterly report of 

all of their firearms dispositions.” RSM, 254 F.3d at 67 (citing 

Firearms Regulations, 43 Fed. Reg. 11,800, 11,800 (Mar. 21, 

1978)). Specifically, “Congress was alarmed by [ ]ATF’s attempt to 

secure the records of all FFLs nationally and the accompanying 

invasion of lawful firearms owners’ privacy.” Id. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 22 of 30
23 

prohibits ATF from promulgating a rule or regulation 

establishing “any system of registration of firearms, firearms 

owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 926(a). 

A national firearms registry is a large-scale collection of 

records. Blaustein & Reich, 365 F.3d at 289 (“Both 

consolidating and centralizing connote a large-scale enterprise 

relating to a substantial amount of information.”); see also

J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1049 (ATF demand letter “do[es] not 

come close to” creating national firearms registry by 

“seek[ing] a limited amount of information”). But the July 

2011 demand letter reaches only (1) FFLs in four states; (2) 

who are licensed dealers and pawnbrokers; (3) and who sell 

two or more rifles of a specific type; (4) to the same person; 

(5) in a five-business-day period. The record discloses that the 

letter requires information about the covered transactions 

from only approximately seven percent of the total number of 

FFLs nationwide. It is true that, as NSSF emphasizes, ATF 

sent the demand letter to a larger percentage of FFLs than was 

involved in the cases before our sister circuits, see J&G Sales, 

473 F.3d at 1046 (0.6% of nationwide FFLs); Blaustein & 

Reich, 365 F.3d at 285 (same as in J&G Sales); RSM, 254 

F.3d at 63 (0.1% of nationwide FFLs). Those cases, however, 

do not purport to establish the ceiling above which a demand 

letter becomes a national firearms registry. And the demand 

letter is in most respects quite narrow. For example, unlike in 

RSM, where FFLs had to report information on “firearms 

purchases and sales for the past three years, and on a monthly 

basis thereafter,” RSM, 254 F.3d at 63, the July 2011 demand 

letter requires the reporting of only a limited number of sales 

and only on a prospective basis. In short, because ATF sent 

the demand letter to only seven percent of FFLs nationwide 

and required information on only a small number of 

transactions, the July 2011 demand letter does not come close 

to creating a “national firearms registry.” 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 23 of 30
24 

D. APA Challenge 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 

et seq. (APA), we “set aside agency action, findings, and 

conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2)(A). An agency must “examine the relevant data and 

articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 

rational connection between the facts found and the choice 

made” to allow us to evaluate the agency’s decision-making 

process. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quotation marks omitted). 

We may not uphold agency action based on speculation, see 

Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co. v. FERC, 475 F.3d 

319, 328-29 (D.C. Cir. 2006), or on the post hoc

rationalization of the agency’s appellate counsel, State Farm, 

463 U.S. at 50. We do not defer to an agency’s “conclusory or 

unsupported suppositions.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. 

Dep’t of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182, 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

“We will, however, uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity 

if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” State 

Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (quotation marks omitted).

 NSSF argues that ATF acted arbitrarily in sending the 

demand letter to qualifying FFLs located in Arizona, 

California, New Mexico and Texas instead of considering 

“actual geographic proximity to the border with Mexico, 

evidence of established patterns of illegal trafficking 

activities, and evidence of actual sales of firearms by 

identified retail sellers under circumstances that ATF 

considers indicative of illegal firearms trafficking.” Opening 

Br. for National Shooting Sports Foundation 15-16 

(hereinafter NSSF Opening Br.). NSSF suggests that ATF 

could have used its own data to identify the proximity of each 

FFL to Mexico, determine how many rifles each FFL sold in a 

given year or determine how many rifles sold by an FFL were 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 24 of 30
25 

recovered in Mexico and how soon they were recovered after 

sale. According to NSSF, ATF’s data “demonstrated that the 

overwhelming majority of retail sellers in the United States 

and, more specifically, in the Border States, had not sold a 

single rifle that was later recovered in Mexico.” NSSF 

Opening Br. 20. Rather, “[s]ales of rifles recovered in Mexico 

were heavily concentrated among relatively few specifically 

identified retail sellers.” NSSF Opening Br. 20-21. NSSF thus 

raises two separate concerns. First, it argues that ATF drew an 

improper line in determining which FFLs to target. Second, 

NSSF argues that ATF failed to explain why it did not target 

FFLs based on NSSF’s alternative targeting method. 

This line-drawing argument fails. An agency has “wide 

discretion” in making line-drawing decisions and “[t]he 

relevant question is whether the agency’s numbers are within 

a zone of reasonableness, not whether its numbers are 

precisely right.” WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449, 462 

(D.C. Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted). An agency “is not 

required to identify the optimal threshold with pinpoint 

precision. It is only required to identify the standard and 

explain its relationship to the underlying regulatory 

concerns.” Id. at 461-62; see also ExxonMobil Gas Mktg. Co. 

v. FERC, 297 F.3d 1071, 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“We are 

generally unwilling to review line-drawing performed by the 

Commission unless a petitioner can demonstrate that lines 

drawn . . . are patently unreasonable, having no relationship to 

the underlying regulatory problem.” (quotation marks omitted 

and ellipsis in original)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 937 (2003); 

Leather Indus. of Am., Inc. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 392, 409 (D.C. 

Cir. 1994) (“Where the agency’s line-drawing does not appear 

irrational and the [challenger] has not shown that the 

consequences of the line-drawing are in any respect dire . . . 

we will leave that line-drawing to the agency’s discretion.”). 

Here, ATF’s line-drawing plainly satisfies the standard 

because the problem ATF sought to address is most severe in 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 25 of 30
26 

Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. “According to 

ATF trace data from the ATF Firearms Tracing System, the 

top four source locations by state for all firearms recovered in 

Mexico that were submitted for tracing and successfully 

traced to non-licensed purchasers between December 1, 2006 

and August 31, 2010, were Texas, Arizona, California and 

New Mexico.” Decl. of Arthur Herbert ¶ 34 (JA 51); see also

GAO REPORT at 19 (JA 573) (“From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal 

year 2008, most of the firearms seized in Mexico and traced 

came from U.S. Southwest border states. In particular, about 

70 percent of these firearms came from Texas, California, and 

Arizona.”). 

 Nor is ATF’s targeting method arbitrary and capricious 

based on its failure to explain why it did not adopt the NSSF’s 

alternative targeting method. While an agency must consider 

and explain its rejection of “reasonably obvious 

alternative[s],” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. SEC, 606 

F.2d 1031, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1979), it need not consider every 

alternative proposed nor respond to every comment made, 

Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 408 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 

(agency need not “respond to every comment, or [ ] analyze 

every issue or alternative raised by the comments, no matter 

how insubstantial”). Rather, an agency must consider only 

“significant and viable” and “obvious” alternatives. City of 

Brookings Mun. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 822 F.2d 1153, 1169 (D.C. 

Cir. 1987); see also City of Alexandria, Va. v. Slater, 198 F.3d 

862, 867-68 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (agency decision narrowing 

alternatives by “focus[ing] primarily on transportation and 

safety issues” was reasonable (quotation marks omitted)), 

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 820 (2000). As we have explained: 

[O]nly comments which, if true, raise points relevant to 

the agency’s decision and which, if adopted, would 

require a change in an agency’s proposed rule cast 

doubt on the reasonableness of a position taken by the 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 26 of 30
27 

agency. Moreover, comments which themselves are 

purely speculative and do not disclose the factual or 

policy basis on which they rest require no response. 

There must be some basis for thinking a position taken 

in opposition to the agency is true. 

Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 n.58 (D.C. Cir.) 

(per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 829 (1977); see also Pub. 

Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

 While ATF did not specifically explain why it did not 

adopt NSSF’s alternative targeting strategy, the record reveals 

that the alternative was not a “significant problem[ ] raised by 

the comments.” NSSF relies on only one source from the 

administrative record: an August 2009 pamphlet authored by 

“Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” which makes forty separate 

general recommendations on a wide variety of topics with the 

goal of “enhanc[ing] enforcement” of firearms laws. See 

MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS, A BLUEPRINT FOR FED.

ACTION ON ILLEGAL GUNS: REGULATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

BEST PRACTICES TO COMBAT ILLEGAL GUN TRAFFICKING 1-3 

(Aug. 2009) (JA 325-27). One recommendation, in an effort 

to reduce all firearms crimes (not simply those occurring in 

Mexico), was to require FFLs “to report multiple sales of 

suspect long guns if in the prior year they had 15 or more 

traces or three or more traces of suspect long guns.” Id. at 31 

(JA 355) (endnote omitted). The pamphlet did not address the 

proposed demand letter nor did it address the targeting 

strategy NSSF proposes here. While NSSF argues that “there 

is substantial, uncontradicted evidence in the administrative 

record of rational alternatives to the choice made by ATF to 

direct the demand letter to each licensed retail seller located in 

the four Border States,” NSSF Opening Br. 29, it fails to cite 

a single page in the administrative record containing such 

evidence. See generally D.C. CIR. R. 28(b) (“When citing to 

the record . . . , citations must refer to specific pages of the 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 27 of 30
28 

source”); Anna Jacques Hosp. v. Sebelius, 583 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. 

Cir. 2009) (“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) 

requires parties to provide ‘citations to the authorities and 

parts of the record on which they rely’ to bolster their 

arguments.” (brackets omitted)). In fact, in National Shooting 

Sports Foundation’s own comments filed with ATF (the only 

comments any of the three appellants placed in the 

administrative record filed with this court), it did not refer to 

the targeting proposal pressed before us or any variant 

thereof. See JA 720-23;12 cf. Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating 

Agency v. FERC, 826 F.2d 1074, 1085 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 

(en banc) (finding alternative not “obvious” when the 

“alternative was not so ‘obvious’ as to occur to [the 

commenter] itself”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913 (1988). 

 NSSF contends that its alternative targeting proposal was 

so obvious based on data in ATF’s possession that ATF 

should have addressed it. Unlike the precedent relied on by 

NSSF, ATF has not rescinded a policy or reversed course 

without explaining why it did not take a more limited action. 

See, e.g., State Farm, 463 U.S. at 46-48 (agency’s 

abandonment of passive restraint requirement arbitrary and 

capricious because agency gave no consideration to requiring 

 12 While National Shooting Sports did comment that firearms 

purchasers could avoid detection by “shift[ing] their trafficking 

activities outside the four[ ]states of this proposed requirement,” JA 

723, NSSF’s present proposal to target only individual dealers 

instead of entire states raises the same concern. ATF notes that if 

the demand letter targeted only certain dealers rather than entire 

states, purchasers could simply travel to another dealer, instead of 

another state, to avoid detection. ATF Br. 52-54. Moreover, ATF 

notes that adopting NSSF’s proposal would “require ATF to 

constantly adjust the specific licensees subject to the reporting 

requirement.” ATF Br. 55. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 28 of 30
29 

airbag technology rather than rescinding passive restraint 

technology altogether); Int’l Ladies’ Garment Workers’ 

Union v. Donovan, 722 F.2d 795, 812 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“This 

case is a classic example of an agency attempt to modify a 

longstanding policy by rescinding regulations embodying that 

policy.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 820 (1984); Office of 

Commc’ns of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 

1413, 1440 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (FCC improperly eliminated 

requirement that radio licensees maintain programming logs 

without considering benefit of retaining modified form of 

logs); Action on Smoking & Health v. CAB, 699 F.2d 1209, 

1216, 1218 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency’s decision to eliminate 

requirement failed to give sufficient consideration to narrower 

alternatives). Although NSSF has carefully combed through 

ATF’s data and suggested an alternative targeting mechanism, 

the fact that ATF could have narrowed the scope of the 

demand letter does not mean that its failure to do so was 

arbitrary and capricious, particularly because NSSF has failed 

to point to any evidence showing that narrowing the 

geographic scope of the demand letter was a serious issue 

raised by any commenter.13 ATF’s decision to direct its July 

2011 demand letter to FFLs based on their geographic 

location was therefore not arbitrary and capricious.14

 13 ATF concluded in response to comments that “the overall 

burden of this collection will be minimal to FFLs” as it affects 

FFLs in “four southwest border states,” does not affect FFLs “who 

do not make multiple sales” of certain rifles to the same person in a 

five-business-day period and will take an FFL only twelve minutes 

to fill out each report. JA 748. 

14 The fact that the demand letters reviewed in J&G Sales and 

Blaustein & Reich targeted specific FFLs based on whether the FFL 

had ten or more traces within the period between sale and recovery 

of three years or less does not make that option “obvious” here. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 29 of 30
30 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment to ATF. 

So ordered. 

 

J&G Sales, 473 F.3d at 1051-53; Blaustein & Reich, 365 F.3d at 

291-92. The demand letters in J&G Sales and Blaustein & Reich

targeted FFLs whose sales may have led to firearms trafficking 

because the firearms they sold were the subject of a 

disproportionate number of trace requests. See, e.g., J&G Sales, 

473 F.3d at 1046; Blaustein & Reich, 365 F.2d at 285. 

USCA Case #12-5009 Document #1438691 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page 30 of 30