N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PAUL VIR IYAPANTHU,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. THOM AS E. B R

ANDON, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s a c ting Dire c tor of the B ure a u of Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s and Explosive s, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-55187 D.C . No. 8:13-c v-00527-C JC -JPR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ, B ER

ZON, a n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pa ul Viriy a pa nthu a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his c om pla int for de c la ra tory and injunc tive re lie f a ga inst theAc ting Dire c tor of the B ure a u of Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s a nd Explosive s (“ ATF” ) for fa i lure to sta t e a c la im 

# F IL ED
MAR 31 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.unde r R

ule 12(b)(6) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure
. For the purpose of
re solving this a

ppe a l, we a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t the M -16 pie c e s he re at issue c onstitute

one or m ore m a c hine guns, a s de fine d by the Nationa l Fire arm s Ac t (“ NFA” ). Se e 26 U.S.C . § 5845(b); se e also 18 U.S.C . § 921(a )(23) (inc orporating the NFA de finition of “m a c hine gun” ). 1 1. Viriy a

pa nthu’ s posse ssion of theM -16 m a c hine gun pie c e s de pic te d in his 2013 lette r to ATF doe s not fa ll within a ny of the sta tutory e xc e ptions to 18 U.S.C . § 922(o). First, the gove rnm e nt ha s ne ve r a

uthoriz e d Viriy a

pa nthu’ s posse s sion of a

m a c hine gun . Se e § 922(o)(2)(A). The tra n sfe rs of the M -16 pie c e s to Viriy a p anthu ne ve r c le are d the re quire m e nts se t out in 26 U.S.C . § 5812 a nd 27 C .F.R . §§ 479.85, 479.90–479.91, a nd Viriy a p anthu doe s not a lle g e any a l te rnative
m anne r in whic h the gove rnm e nt a uthoriz e d his re c e i pt a

nd posse ssion of a

1 Viriy a p anthu a lle ge d

tha t ATF thre ate n e d prose c ution if he did not surre nde r se ve ra l M -16 pie c e s in his posse ssion. Hedid not a lle ge tha t ATF spe c ifie d a

ny sta tute (s) unde r whic h he would be prose c ute d. The gove rnm e nt c an prose c ute the sa

m e c onduc t—

unre giste re d posse ssion of a m a c hine gun a fte r 1986— unde r e ithe r 18 U.S.C . § 922(o) or 26 U.S.C . § 5861(d). Unite d State s v . Hunte r , 73 F.3d 260, 262 (9th C ir. 1996) (pe r c uriam ). The pe na ltie s a va ila ble unde r the sta

tute s a re substa ntia lly the sa m e . Se e 18 U.S.C
. § 924(a )(2), 924(d); 26 U.S.C . §§ 5871–72. B e c a use we c onc lude tha

t, a s sum ing Viriy a

pa nthu’ s pie c e s a

re a m a c hine gun a s de fine d unde r the NFA, the gove rnm e n t m ay c onstitutiona

lly prose c ute Viriy a

pa nthu unde r at le a st one fe de ra l sta t ute , 18 U.S.C . § 922(o), no a c tua l c ontrove rsy

re g a rding 26 U.S.C . § 5861(d) re m a ins. Se eMe dImmune , Inc . v . Ge ne nte c h, Inc

. , 549 U.S. 118, 126–129 (2007); C a nate lla v . C

alifornia , 304 F.3d 843, 853 (9th C ir. 2002). W e the re fore do not re a c h tha t c la im
. 2m a c hine gun. Furthe r, the portion of § 922(o)(2)(A) re lating to “transfe rs to or by ”

the U nite d State s a

pplie s only

to tra nsfe rs, not to the

m a c hine guns so tra

nsfe rre d. It e xe m pts suc h tra

nsfe rs from § 922(o)(1)’ s ba n on transfe r

s of m a c h ine guns but doe s not a ffe c t tha

t pa ra gra p h’ s se pa ra te ba n on posse ssion
. 18 U.S.C
. § 922(o)(2). Se c ond, the grandfathe r e xc e p tion doe s not a pply be c a use Viriy a

p anthu is not in “ la wful posse ssion of a

m a c h ine gun,” a s the m a c hine gun is not (a nd c annot be ) re giste re d to him
. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 922(o)(2)(B ). 2. The a

pplic ation of § 922(o)(1) to Viriy a p anthu’ s posse ssion of a
m a c hine gun would fa ll within the C om m e rc e C la

u se powe r. The m a c hine gun posse s sion ba

n is pa rt of a “ de ta ile d a

nd c om pre he nsive sta

tutory re gim e ” to
re gula te i nte rstate c om

m e rc e in fire arm s. Unite d State s v . Ste w art , 451 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th C ir. 2006), ov e rrule d on anothe r ground by Dist. of C

olumbia v . He lle r , 554 U.S. 570, 594–95 (2008). In light of the “ e s ta blishe d a nd luc ra tive ” inte rstate
m arke t for m a c hine guns, “ C ongre ss ha d a rationa l ba sis for c onc luding tha t[,] in the a ggre gate ,” the posse ssion of M -16 pie c e s tha t c a n be re a sse m

ble d into a full,
a utom at ic m a c hine gun re c e ive r, “ c ould substa ntia lly a ffe c t inte rstate c o m

m e rc e in
m a c hine guns.” Se e id . at 1077–78; se ealso 26 U.S.C . § 5845(b). 3. W e e x e rc i se our disc re tion to re vie w Viriy a pa nthu’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt se lf-inc rim ination c la im , whic h he ra ise s for the first tim e on a ppe a l , 3be c a

use it pre se nts a

pure ly le ga l issuean d re vie w at this stage doe s not pre judic e ATF. Se e Harris v . Maric opa C ty . Supe r ior C

o urt , 631 F.3d 963, 975 n.4 (9th C ir. 2011). Unlikethe pla intiffs in H ay ne s v . Unite d State

s , 390 U.S. 85 (1968), a

nd Le ary v . Unite d State

s , 395 U.S. 6 (1969), the

sta tute s he re at

issue do not re quire individuals to re giste r c ontra b and a c quire d via

unre giste re d , a

nd thus ille ga l, transfe rs. R athe r, the sta

t ute s he re forbid re gistra

t ion of a m a c hine gun tha t wa s
e ithe r a c quire d in a

n unre g i ste re d tra

nsfe r or not la

wfully posse sse d prior to 1986. Se e Hunte r , 73 F.3d a

t 261–62. Nor doe s the polic y forwarde d by

ATF in the distric t c o urt proc e e dings im pose a se pa

ra t e le ga l re quire m e nt tha t Viriy a p anthu subm it his pie c e s or a

ny inform ation to ATF. As no le ga l obliga tion is im pose d upon Viriy a

pa nthu to provide

inc rim inating inform ation to the gove rnm e nt, the privile ge a ga inst se lf-inc rim ination doe s not a pply
. Se e Hay n e

s , 390 U.S. a

t 94–96. 4. Viriy a

pa nthu’ s M otion to Ta

ke Judic ia l Notic e (Doc ke t No. 21) is DENIED. The doc um e n ts re lat e only to a rgum e nts ra i se d for the first tim e in his
re ply brie f an d a

re not re le va

n t to the issue s prope rly

be fore the c ourt. C

f. Holland Am. Line Inc . v . W artsila N . Am., Inc

. , 485 F.3d 450, 459 n.6 (9th C ir. 2007). AFFIRM E D.

4