THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548 • (512) 463-2100 • www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

JOHNATHAN STONE PHONE: (512) 463-2120

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FAX: (512) 320-0667

GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION EMAIL: Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov

June 26, 2023

By Electronic Filing

The Hon. Mark T. Pittman

United States District Judge

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

501 West 10th Street, Room 401

Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3673

Re: Paxton, et al v. Dettelbach, et al

Civil Case No. 4:22-cv-143-P

Dear Judge Pittman:

The State of Texas and the individual plaintiffs respectfully move for leave of court in order to 

submit this letter brief providing additional materials in support of the Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment.

At the Court’s June 15th hearing, you outlined three primary questions for the parties. We would 

like to provide some additional materials responding to two of those questions.

1. Does at least one plaintiff have standing?

In addition to the materials outlined in the Plaintiffs’ briefing, the Plaintiffs would direct the Court 

to the Supreme Court’s recent April 14, 2023, decision in Axon Enter. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 

(2023). The standing principles regarding this challenge alleging BATFE’s administrative process 

is constitutionally deficient should be examined in light of the Court’s holding in Axon. There the 

court held unanimously that plaintiffs could bring “fundamental, even existential” claims to the 

administrative process through a collateral attack in district court. Id. at 897. Because the parties 

were not seeking to rebut a particular administrative decision but rather were seeking to challenge 

whether they were subject to an “illegitimate proceeding,” the Court unanimously allowed the 

challenges to proceed. Similarly, the Court here should find that the plaintiffs have standing to 

bring their constitutional challenges to the federal governments’ regulation of firearm suppressors 

without requiring Plaintiffs to subject themselves to that allegedly unconstitutional process.

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 59-1 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1077
2. Does the AIA Apply?

Plaintiffs rest on their pleadings in arguing (1) the AIA simply does not apply to the application 

requirement (Count I), the registration requirement (Count III), or the serial-number requirement 

(Count IV); and (2) the AIA does not apply to any of the Counts under the Enochs exception. 

Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962). 

3. Are regulations of firearm suppressors subject to the 2nd Amendment?

Plaintiffs continue to urge the court that the question of whether a firearm suppressor is itself an 

“arm” is not the proper question post-Bruen. The Second Amendment protects conduct, not 

particular devices. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022) 

(“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution 

presumptively protects that conduct.”).

However, to the extent the Court examines whether firearms suppressors meet the definition of 

“arms,” the answer is yes. In Bruen, the Court defined “arms” broadly to include “modern 

instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.” Id. at 2132 (emphasis added). Previously, the 

Court had already recognized the historical inclusion of “armour of defence” within the definition 

of arms, showing the definition is not limited to completed weapons. District of Columbia v. 

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008).

Accordingly, because a firearm suppressor is a “modern instrument that facilitate[s] armed selfdefense,” it is an “arm” according to the Court’s most recent definition in Bruen. 

/s/ Johnathan Stone

JOHNATHAN STONE

Assistant Attorney General

General Litigation Division

State Bar No. 24071779

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, TX 78711-2548

(512) 936-1706 • fax (512) 320-0167

Johnathan.Stone@oag.texas.gov

Attorneys for Ken Paxton,

Attorney General of Texas

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 59-1 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1078