IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP INC., et 

al.,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of the United States, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF GUN OWNERS FOR SAFETY AND INDIVIDUAL 

CO-AMICI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO ORIGINAL 

PLAINTIFFS’ AND INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FILED

KAREN MITCHELL

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT 

COURT February 23, 2023

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 33 PageID 3876
i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Gun Owners for Safety is a voluntary coalition of gun owners that does not have 

any corporate parent and does not issue stock, so no publicly held corporation holds 10% 

or more of its stock. Gun Owners for Safety is supported by Giffords—the gun safety 

organization co-founded and led by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords—and the 

employees of Giffords. Giffords also has no corporate parent and does not issue stock, so 

no publicly held corporation holds 10% or more of its stock. 

No counsel for a party authored any part of this brief. No one other than amici 

curiae, its members, or its counsel financed the preparation or submission of this brief.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 33 PageID 3877
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT...................................................................I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 6

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 8

I. THE RULE DOES NOT AFFECT SCRATCH BUILDS AND ONLY 

MINIMALLY AFFECTS KIT BUILDS ................................................................ 8

A. Scratch Builds Are Not Affected by the Rule .............................................. 8

B. Kit Builds Are Only Minimally Affected by the Rule ............................... 11

II. THE RULE IS A NARROWLY TAILORED COMMERCIAL 

REGULATION DESIGNED TO PREVENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.............. 13

A. The Rule is Narrowly Tailored to Prevent Criminal Activity.................... 14

B. The Rule Prohibits Ghost Guns Without Exceeding ATF’s Statutory 

Authority or the Second Amendment......................................................... 22

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................................................... 27

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 33 PageID 3878
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

iii

CASES

Abramski v. United States,

573 U.S. 169 (2014)......................................................................................... 14, 22, 23

District of Columbia v. Heller,

554 U.S. 570 (2008)..................................................................................................... 23

Huddleston v. United States,

415 U.S. 814 (1974)..................................................................................................... 22

McDonald v. City of Chicago,

561 U.S. 742 (2010)..................................................................................................... 23

Morehouse Enters. LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & 

Explosives,

2022 WL 3597299 (D.N.D. Aug. 16, 2022)................................................................ 24

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen,

142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)................................................................................................. 23

New York v. Burger,

482 U.S. 691 (1987)..................................................................................................... 23

United States v. Hosford,

843 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................... 24

United States v. Tilotta,

No. 3:19-CR-04768, 2022 WL 3924282 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022)........................... 24

STATUTES & REGULATIONS

27 C.F.R. § 478.11....................................................................................................... 14, 15

18 U.S.C. § 921 ..................................................................................................... 12, 14, 16

18 U.S.C. § 923 ................................................................................................................. 16

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 33 PageID 3879
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Page(s)

iv

18 U.S.C § 926 .................................................................................................................. 22

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. 

Reg. 24,652 (published April 26, 2022) (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 

478, 479) ............................................................................................................... passim

Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, § 101, 82 Stat. 1213................................ 22

OTHER AUTHORITIES

A Better-Than-Basic Glock 17 Compatible Build List for Under $500, 3CR

TACTICAL, https://3crtactical.com/a-betterthan-basicglock-17-clonebuild-list-for-under-500/ (last visited February 14, 2023)........................................... 19

ATF Firearms Tracing Guide, ATF Publication 3312.13, BUREAU OF 

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/atf-firearms-tracing-guide-atfp-331213 (last visited Feb. 17, 2023) .......................................................................... 16

Carter Evans, Santa Monica Shooter Built His Own Weapon, CBS NEWS

(June 14, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/santa-monica-shooterbuilt-his-own-weapon/ ................................................................................................. 20

Cody Rutledge Wilson, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/codyrutledge-wilson (last visited Feb. 17, 2023)................................................................. 21

Dakin Andone, The Gunman In The Saugus High School Shooting Used A 

'Ghost Gun,' Sheriff Says, CNN (Nov. 21, 2019), 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/us/saugus-shooting-ghostgun/index.html ............................................................................................................. 21

David Pucino, Ghost Guns: How Untraceable Firearms Threaten Public 

Safety, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER (May 2020), 

https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Giffords-LawCenter-Ghost-Guns-Report.pdf%20 ................................................................ 17, 19, 20

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 33 PageID 3880
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Page(s)

v

Glossary, SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS’

INSTITUTE, INC., https://saami.org/saami-glossary/?search=reciever (last 

visited Feb. 17, 2023)................................................................................................... 12

Gunsmithing a Custom Rifle Stock and Glossary, SPORTING ARMS AND 

AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS' INSTITUTE, INC., 

https://saami.org/saami-glossary/?search=action (last visited Feb 15, 

2023.............................................................................................................................. 10

Gunsmithing a Custom Rifle Stock from Scratch: the Step by Step Guide, 

RICHARD'S MICROFIT STOCKS (Feb. 8, 2021), 

https://richardsmicrofitgunstocks.com/thing-a-custom-rifle-stock-fromscratch-the-step-by-step-guide (last visited Feb. 17, 2023) 

(“Gunsmithing a Custom Rifle Stock”.......................................................................... 10

Handgun Parts, 80% LOWERS, https://www.80-lower.com/handgun-parts 

(last visited Feb. 15, 2023)..................................................................................... 11, 19

Understanding Headspace in an AR-15, AT3 TACTICAL, 

https://www.at3tactical.com///is-headspace-in-an-ar-15-and-how-canyou-check-it-read-on (last visited Feb. 15, 2023)........................................................ 11

Untraceable: The Rising Spector of Ghost Guns, EVERYTOWN FOR GUN 

SAFETY (May 14, 2020), https://everytownresearch.org/report/therising-specter-of-ghost-guns/ ........................................................................... 17, 18, 20

What Are Ghost Guns, BRADY UNITED, https://www.bradyunited.org/factsheets/what-are-ghost-guns (last visited February 14, 2023) ...................................... 20

Why Outlawing Ghost Guns Didn't Stop America's Largest Maker of Ghost 

Gun Parts, PROPUBLICA (August 24, 2022), 

https://www.propublica.org/article/nevada-ghost-guns-polymer80-

firearms-laws................................................................................................................ 21

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 6 of 33 PageID 3881
1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amicus curiae Gun Owners for Safety is a united coalition of gun owners from 

varied backgrounds and political affiliations who believe lives can be saved through 

commonsense gun laws that do not infringe upon the civil rights of law-abiding gun 

owners. With chapters in Texas and across the country, including Colorado, Florida, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, Gun Owners for Safety works 

to prevent gun violence while supporting and protecting Second Amendment rights. Gun 

Owners for Safety is comprised of over 20,000 experienced gun owners of all trades and 

hobbies, including law enforcement, military, hunting, sport shooting, collecting, and 

building guns. In Texas alone, Gun Owners for Safety has 1,200 gun owner members, 

including 60 volunteer ambassadors who have educated the public and lawmakers through 

such activities as hosting seminars and testifying before the State Legislature. Affiliated 

with Giffords, the gun safety organization co-founded and led by Congresswoman 

Gabrielle Giffords, a gun owner herself, we fully respect the Second Amendment and 

simultaneously are devoted to encouraging safe and responsible gun ownership practices. 

Guns Owners for Safety promotes a shift in culture to inform Americans about ways to 

improve safe gun ownership, including commonsense gun laws. 

In addition to the Gun Owners for Safety coalition, five individuals are also amici 

curiae and signatories to this brief: Jason Perry, Ryan Busse, Jonathan Gold, Steven Kling, 

and Scott Spreier. Each of these individuals is affiliated with the Gun Owners for Safety 

coalition, including two as leaders in its Texas chapter, and they seek to add the weight of 

their voices to the issues addressed in this brief. These five individuals hail from all 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 7 of 33 PageID 3882
2

different walks of life, different regions of the country, and different personal beliefs, but 

they are united in their dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership 

practices consistent with their Second Amendment rights. 

Jason Perry is the Deputy Engagement Director for Gun Owners for Safety at 

Giffords. Originally from Kentucky, Mr. Perry has been a gunowner for over 20 years, 

previously had a license to carry concealed firearms and other deadly weapons in 

Kentucky, and spent several years competing in International Defensive Pistol Association 

(“IDPA”) sporting events. Mr. Perry served 12 years as a firefighter and paramedic in 

Kentucky where he treated many victims of gun violence. After an injury cut his 

firefighting career short, Mr. Perry graduated from college and moved to Washington, D.C. 

to continue his career in public service. Prior to moving to Washington, D.C., Mr. Perry 

built firearms from imported parts kits that included torched receivers, which he replaced 

with serialized parts that he purchased through an entity licensed in the U.S. to engage in 

the firearm business (referred to as a federal firearms license or “FFL”). 

Mr. Perry came to work for Gun Owners for Safety in May 2022. Mr. Perry has 

organized a variety of events emphasizing gun safety, lobbied before Congress, and 

spearheaded a training program that prepares Gun Owners for Safety ambassadors to share 

credible and accurate information about safe and responsible gun ownership practices with 

their communities. 

Ryan Busse, who resides in Montana, is a Senior Advisor to Gun Owners for Safety 

and to Giffords. Mr. Busse has extensive personal experience with firearms, having 

received intensive firearms, armory, and gunsmith training. In addition, Mr. Busse was 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 8 of 33 PageID 3883
3

employed in the firearms industry for more than 25 years, working as a sales and marketing 

executive for a leading firearm manufacturer, and was nominated for industry awards 

multiple times. Since leaving the industry, Mr. Busse dedicates his time and efforts to 

environmental advocacy, and since June 2021 he has held the position of Senior Advisor 

to Gun Owners for Safety and Giffords. In this advisory role, Mr. Busse supports Gun 

Owners for Safety and Giffords to promote sensible gun ownership and regulation, and he 

regularly engages in public outreach. 

Mr. Busse is also the author of the book Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry 

that Radicalized America, which he published in October 2021. Gunfight details Mr. 

Busse’s life as a firearms industry executive, his efforts to make inroads toward sensible 

gun ownership and use, and his experiences with the industry’s opposition to those efforts. 

Through Gunfight and his advocacy and advisory role, Mr. Busse seeks policy and cultural 

changes to reduce gun violence. 

Jonathan Gold, who resides in Michigan, is a Senior Ambassador for Gun Owners 

for Safety. Mr. Gold has owned firearms for over three decades and served as a firearms 

instructor for nearly as long. He is recognized as a subject matter expert on firearms and 

continues to teach private firearm lessons—specifically highlighting safety, handling, and 

marksmanship. Mr. Gold has been involved with working to identify perpetrators of crime, 

understanding the importance of serializing guns to trace firearms used in crimes to the 

perpetrator, and also the difficulty in solving crimes when the firearm lacks a serial number. 

Mr. Gold has personally built competition rifles, all using serialized parts from an FFL. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 9 of 33 PageID 3884
4

Mr. Gold has led the Gun Owners for Safety chapter in Michigan since March 2020. 

This chapter, which includes many members who are regular hunters, coordinates various 

events and activities to promote responsible gun ownership, such as designing and teaching 

educational courses on gun safety, tabling at various community events, and partnering 

with other agencies to promote other educational programs. 

Steven Kling is a Senior Ambassador for Gun Owners for Safety in the Texas 

chapter; he lives with his family in the Texas Hill Country. Mr. Kling, a former Captain 

in the United States Army, served two combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was 

awarded the Bronze Star, the Combat Action Badge, and Joint Services Commendation 

Medal for his service. Mr. Kling has also spent time as a Commander of a small arms 

training company in the United States Army Reserves. As a life-long gun owner and avid 

hunter, Mr. Kling has a deep respect for the heritage, training, and safety of firearms. 

Mr. Kling was drawn to Gun Owners for Safety and Giffords because the 

organizations give a voice to gun owners like himself—those who respect firearms safety 

and understand the significant role that gun owners have played historically in ensuring 

responsible and lawful firearms ownership and use, and lament the loss of that role of gun 

owners in current civil discourse. Among his involvement with other events of the Texas 

chapter of Gun Owners for Safety, Mr. Kling’s leadership has included lobbying and 

legislative affairs efforts in light of the Uvalde shooting.

Scott Spreier, who resides in Dallas, Texas, also serves as a Senior Ambassador for 

the Texas chapter of Gun Owners for Safety. Mr. Spreier has been a firearm owner for 

over 30 years and is an avid hunter and sport shooter. Mr. Spreier grew up in western 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 10 of 33 PageID 3885
5

Kansas among farmers and ranchers, where guns were seen as tools. After serving in the 

Air Force during the Vietnam War, Mr. Spreier became an NRA-accredited firearm 

instructor in order to help train his sons and their fellow Boy Scout troop members. 

Mr. Spreier is a published author on the subject of gun safety and commonsense gun laws. 

Mr. Spreier has supported Giffords for several years and in April of 2020 joined the 

Gun Owners for Safety program at the inception of the Texas chapter. The Texas chapter 

participates in community events, hosting informational booths and tables to provide 

practical, nonpartisan, educated, and commonsense information about firearms. 

Mr. Spreier’s goal is to educate as many individuals as possible—across all races, 

ethnicities, and political affiliations—by providing credible information from credible 

sources to balance the misinformation often spread on the issue of gun ownership rights.

All five of the individual Amici are passionate about the importance of serialization 

of firearms. They recognize that the serial number is a key tool for law enforcement to 

fight crime and domestic violence. In many circumstances, the ability to trace gun 

ownership through the serial number is the key step of an investigation to ultimately bring 

justice and closure for the families of victims of gun violence.

Amici’s purpose in filing this amicus brief is to provide to this Court credible 

information from credible sources about the impact of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives Final Rule 2021R-05F. Amici provide this information from the 

perspective of individuals and an organization with members who fully support the 

protection of Second Amendment rights. These individuals and the organization are 

equally concerned with enacting commonsense gun laws that promote safe and legal use 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 11 of 33 PageID 3886
6

of firearms, aid law enforcement in fighting crime, and reduce gun violence. Amici have 

previously filed a brief in this case at the preliminary injunction stage, which the Court 

accepted. See ECF Nos. 57-58. 

INTRODUCTION

Amici previously filed an amicus brief at the preliminary injunction stage of these 

proceedings, with the purpose of providing real-world context regarding the effect of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) Final Rule 2021R-05F, 

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms (the “Rule”), on lawabiding gun owners who build their own firearms at home. See Amici Curiae Br. of Gun 

Owners for Safety and Individual Co-Amici in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 58 (“PI Amici Curiae Br.”). 

Now at summary judgment, Amici likewise seek to address the issues before the 

Court with their unique perspective on the real-world impacts of the Rule and the 

challenges to the Rule brought by Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Plaintiffs (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”). To that end, Amici wish to provide their insight as gun owners who respect 

the Second Amendment, favor commonsense firearm regulations, and oppose the 

proliferation of unserialized firearms. It is therefore important for Amici to explain why 

the Rule strikes a constitutional and permissible balance in discouraging criminal actors 

from obtaining dangerous, unserialized “ghost guns” while maintaining our rights to craft 

guns in our own homes within the bounds of preexisting law. 

In particular, Amici intend to offer this Court a different perspective on the Rule 

than what has been offered by the parties to date. Amidst the various constitutional and 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 12 of 33 PageID 3887
7

statutory challenges raised by Plaintiffs and addressed across two-hundred-plus pages of 

summary judgment briefing, this Court should not lose sight of the fundamentals of this 

case: What does the Rule prohibit? What does the Rule allow? What are unserialized 

firearms? How does the Rule compare to previous exercises of ATF’s authority under the 

Gun Control Act? Amici believe that when the Court views these questions and the 

underlying legal issues through a grounded, practical lens, the answer is clear: even under 

a broad view of the Second Amendment, and a limited view of agency rulemaking, the 

Rule is a constitutional and reasonable commercial firearm regulation that should be duly 

upheld against Plaintiffs’ challenges. 

In answering the questions above, Amici also aim to correct Plaintiffs’ erroneous 

assertions and assumptions about the scope of the Rule. At various points in their briefing, 

Plaintiffs exaggerate the import of the Rule, claiming that ATF has seized unprecedented 

power or somehow starkly departed from its previous regulatory practices. The truth is 

much less dramatic. The Rule merely extends the same serialization and other de minimis 

commercial restrictions that already apply in similar home build contexts to partially 

finished frames and receivers. These requirements are not burdensome and do not 

significantly impact our at-home builds. What is more, they are critical, commonsense 

requirements that reduce gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of people who 

legally should not have them. 

The Court should reject the Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Rule and grant the 

Government’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the merits.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 13 of 33 PageID 3888
8

ARGUMENT

I. THE RULE DOES NOT AFFECT SCRATCH BUILDS AND ONLY MINIMALLY AFFECTS KIT BUILDS

At the outset, Amici reiterate that the Rule does not impose any new or burdensome 

regulations on traditional at-home gun making. The Rule is narrowly tailored to avoid

infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to build their own firearms from scratch or 

from kits. These nuances are lost in Plaintiffs’ summary judgment briefing. Indeed, 

Plaintiffs rely heavily on the premise that the Rule will sweep away entirely the rights of 

law-abiding gun owners to complete at-home builds of firearms. See VanDerStok, Andren, 

Tactical Machining, LLC, and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. Br. in Supp. of Mot. for 

Summ. J., ECF No. 140 (“VanDerStok Br.”), at 5.1

 This premise is patently false. An 

accurate assessment of the different processes for building guns and the applicable 

regulatory requirements makes clear that the Rule simply extends existing federal 

restrictions to cover partially finished and easy-to-manufacture guns. See PI Amici Curiae 

Br. at 24-25. 

A. Scratch Builds Are Not Affected by the Rule

Far from Plaintiffs’ sweeping gestures at a “bald attempt to claim the authority to 

regulate privately made firearms,” the plain text of the Rule exempts from regulation an 

entire category of privately made firearms—those built from scratch. BlackHawk Mfg. 

Grp. Inc. Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 145 (“BlackHawk Br.”), at 27. As 

1 All citations to ECF documents are to the internal pagination of the document, not the 

ECF pagination.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 14 of 33 PageID 3889
9

in their preliminary injunction briefing, Plaintiffs continue to conflate the assembly of guns 

made from partially finished components (i.e., ghost guns) with guns made from scratch, 

potentially due to a lack of familiarity with the differences between the two processes, or 

perhaps a desire to overstate the effect of the Rule. See, e.g., VanDerStok Br. at 5 (broadly 

describing “ghost guns” as “a pejorative for privately manufactured firearms”); see also PI 

Amici Curiae Br. at 8-9, 11 16-17, 23-24 (correcting similar misstatements). But 

appreciating the differences between scratch builds and kit builds is critical to 

understanding the true impact of the Rule. Scratch builds for personal use are outside the 

ambit of the Rule and will continue to be exempt from regulations governing FFLs. The 

Rule solely (and minimally) affects a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional

frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit.” Definition of “Frame or 

Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652, at 24,739 (published April 

26, 2022) (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, 479) (emphasis added). 

The Rule’s revised definition of “frame or receiver” plainly excludes scratch build 

firearms by stating that these terms “shall not include a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, 

unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of manufacture where 

it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon (e.g., unformed block 

of metal, liquid polymer, or other raw material).” Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 

24,653 (“[T]he final rule makes clear that articles that have not yet reached a stage of 

manufacture where they are clearly identifiable as an unfinished component of a frame or 

receiver (e.g., unformed blocks of metal, liquid polymers, or other raw materials) are not 

frames or receivers.”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 15 of 33 PageID 3890
10

As noted in our prior brief, there should be no mistaking a scratch build for a kit 

build that utilizes partially finished components. See PI Amici Curiae Br. at 12. The 

scratch build community does not use partially manufactured frames or receivers. Crafting 

a gun from scratch begins with raw materials that have no pre-shaping, milling, or 

manufacturing. Id. Scratch builds “require[] precision carpentry tools and woodworking 

skills ‘that might be a stretch for beginner carpenters . . . . It is [a] high labor, time, and 

skill-intensive task.’” Id. at 13 (quoting Gunsmithing a Custom Rifle Stock from Scratch: 

the Step by Step Guide, RICHARD’S MICROFIT STOCKS (Feb. 8, 2021), 

https://richardsmicrofitgunstocks.com/gunsmithing-a-custom-rifle-stock-from-scratchthe-step-by-step-guide (last visited Feb. 17, 2023)). The steps for building a rifle from 

scratch include selecting raw materials; designing the rifle stock; in letting the action to 

ensure that the stock fits with the frame and receiver; shaping the hardwood material to

conform to the preferred rifle stock design; and sanding, whiskering, and applying an oil 

finish to the rifle stock. See id. (citing Gunsmithing a Custom Rifle Stock and Glossary, 

SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS’ INSTITUTE, INC., 

https://saami.org/saami-glossary/?search=action (last visited Feb 15, 2023)). Crafting a 

musket from scratch similarly requires “highly specialized knowledge and skill.” Id. at 14 

(describing the processes of forging, casting, and stamping metal parts for a musket).

A scratch build of a more contemporary weapon, such as an AR pattern firearm, 

demands even more technical skill from the artisan. See id. at 14. Specific tolerances must 

be met to ensure appropriate lockup between the round, chamber, bolt face, bolt carrier, 

and recoil gas tube interface occurs safely and repeatably. See Understanding Headspace 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 16 of 33 PageID 3891
11

in an AR-15, AT3 TACTICAL, https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/news/what-is-headspacein-an-ar-15-and-how-can-you-check-it-read-on (last visited Feb. 15, 2023). To ensure the 

hammer strikes the firing pin, when and only when the bolt has securely locked a live round 

into battery, requires expensive and specialized tools such as mills, files, headspace gauges, 

and micrometers not often found in the toolboxes of the average gun owner. See id. 

In sum, a scratch build is fundamentally different from a gun constructed from 

partially finished components as part of an easy-to-complete kit (commonly called “ghost 

guns”). By affirmatively taking these differences into account, the Rule protects, rather 

than compromises, the rights of law-abiding gun owners to privately manufacture firearms 

from scratch. 

B. Kit Builds Are Only Minimally Affected by the Rule

In addition, Plaintiffs continue to overstate the limited impact the rule has on kit 

builds. See, e.g., BlackHawk Br. at 2 (arguing that the Rule “puts ordinary citizens at risk 

and illegally invades manufacturing sectors [and] supply chains”). 

As a brief overview, “kit builds” refer to the process of “building guns from 

manufactured or partially manufactured components, as opposed to raw materials. The 

components can be sold together as part of a kit, or the components can be sold 

individually.” PI Amici Curiae Br. at 17-18. In direct contrast to scratch builds, “[n]o 

experience is required” to perform a kit build, and “easy-to-follow instructions” are often 

provided. Handgun Parts, 80% LOWERS, https://www.80-lower.com/handgun-parts (last 

visited Feb. 15, 2023). The “basic unit” of a contemporary firearm is generally called the 

“frame” in handguns, or the “receiver” in long guns.” PI Amici Curiae Br. at 18 (citing 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 17 of 33 PageID 3892
12

Glossary, SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS’ INSTITUTE, INC., 

https://saami.org/saami-glossary/?search=reciever (last visited Feb. 17, 2023)). Frames or 

receivers can be fully manufactured and operational, or they can be partially manufactured. 

A partially manufactured frame or receiver, known as “receiver blank,” “unfinished 

receiver,” or “80%” frame or receiver, typically requires a minimal amount of additional 

machining in order to be a fully functional frame or receiver. Id. at 18-19.

As explained in Amici’s prior brief, regulation is nothing new for certain types of 

kit builds. Indeed, the building of guns using fully machined parts has long been regulated. 

Id. at 17. To that end, the Rule imposes no new regulations on kit builds with fully 

machined parts. Even before the Rule came into effect, the purchase of a fully machined 

frame or receiver (with or without a kit) was subject to the same requirements as the 

purchase of a fully operational firearm: the frame or receiver had to be serialized by the 

manufacturer and purchased through an FFL. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)). Furthermore, 

the purchaser had to complete a Form 4473 (ATF Firearm Transaction Record) and 

undergo a background check. See id. Plaintiffs’ assertion that the rule “illegally invades 

manufacturing sectors . . . [and] supply chains” thus disregards the preexisting regulations 

in this space.

The Rule merely puts kits with partially machined frames or receivers on the same 

footing, likewise requiring these products to comply with the same federal firearms 

regulations as kits utilizing fully machined parts, given their plain purpose of being turned 

into a firearm. PI Amici Curiae Br. at 21-24. In other words, the only change that resulted 

from the Rule is that unfinished frames or receivers, along with kits containing such parts, 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 18 of 33 PageID 3893
13

are now treated in the same manner as kits with fully machined, serialized frames or 

receivers. See id. To be clear, the Rule does not impact the availability of 80% kits to lawabiding Americans: any individual who can pass a background check is still permitted to 

purchase or utilize an 80% kit. Id. ATF’s lawful exercise of its rulemaking authority 

makes explicit that it does “not burden law-abiding, good faith actors”—it merely closes a 

loophole that made it easier for “traffickers and prohibited persons” to obtain firearms. 87 

Fed. Reg. at 24,669-70.

* * *

In both neglecting to distinguish scratch builds from kit builds and overstating the 

Rule’s impact on kit builds, Plaintiffs continue to overstate the effect of the Rule. Given 

that scratch builds are unaffected by the Rule, and that kit builds are only minimally 

impacted, Plaintiffs’ continued re-casting of the facts in their summary judgment briefs 

remains misleading. 

II. THE RULE IS A NARROWLY TAILORED COMMERCIAL REGULATION DESIGNED TO PREVENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY 

As discussed above, the Rule does not cover traditional home gun making protected 

by the Second Amendment. What the Rule does cover is criminal activity clearly designed 

to subvert federal firearms law. This purpose is fully consistent with the Gun Control Act 

and the Constitution, and belies Plaintiffs’ many constitutional and statutory claims 

alleging otherwise. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 19 of 33 PageID 3894
14

A. The Rule is Narrowly Tailored to Prevent Criminal Activity 

As the Government aptly explained, the Rule is narrowly tailored to carry forward

the Gun Control Act’s plainly constitutional goal of “curb[ing] crime by keeping firearms 

out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them.” Defs.’ Combined Br. in 

Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Gov’t Br.”) at 42, ECF No. 181 (quoting Abramski v. 

United States, 573 U.S. 169, 181 (2014) (internal quotations omitted)). In doing so, the 

Rule does not expand ATF’s reach beyond either the Gun Control Act’s traditional bounds 

or what courts have long considered compliant with the Second Amendment.

At the outset, it bears repeating what the Rule does and does not prohibit. Under 

the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“the Act”), a “frame” or “receiver” is the only component of 

a gun (in addition to the gun itself) that qualifies as a “firearm.” This is because the Act 

defines a “firearm” as “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed 

to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the 

frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or 

(D) any destructive device.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) (emphasis added). 

In 1968 ATF promulgated regulations regarding the Act. As relevant here, ATF 

adopted regulations to implement the Act. The 1968 regulation defined a “firearm” as: 

“Any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be 

converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any 

such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the 

term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed collector, the term shall 

mean only curios and relics.” 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. And it defined a “frame or receiver” as: 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 20 of 33 PageID 3895
15

“That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and 

firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the 

barrel.” Id.

The Rule that is at issue was adopted on April 26, 2022, became effective on August 

24, 2022, and adds the following language to the definition of a “firearm”:

The term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily 

be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a 

projectile by the action of an explosive. The term shall not include a 

weapon, including a weapon parts kit, in which the frame or receiver of 

such weapon is destroyed as described in the definition of “frame or 

receiver.”

87 Fed. Reg. at 24,735. Further, the definition of “frame or receiver” has been updated in 

the Rule. In relevant part, the Rule provides that “frame or receiver”:

[S]hall include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame 

or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or 

may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to 

function as a frame or receiver, i.e., to house or provide a structure for the 

primary energized component of a handgun, breech blocking or sealing 

component of a projectile weapon other than a handgun, or internal sound 

reduction component of a firearm muffler or firearm silencer, as the case 

may be. The terms shall not include a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, 

unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of 

manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part 

of a weapon (e.g., unformed block of metal, liquid polymer, or other raw 

material). When issuing a classification, the Director may consider any 

associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or 

marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or 

kit, or otherwise made available by the seller or distributor of the item or 

kit to the purchaser or recipient of the item or kit.

Id. at 24,739 (emphases added). To clarify what is meant by “readily,” the Rule includes 

eight factors that will help ATF to determine whether something is “readily” converted or 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 21 of 33 PageID 3896
16

assembled, including the time, ease, expertise, equipment, availability of parts, expense, 

scope of the project, and feasibility of the process. Id. at 24,663. 

The Rule also adds and defines a new term: “privately made firearm” (“PMF”). A 

PMF is “a firearm, including a frame or receiver, completed, assembled, or otherwise 

produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial number or 

other identifying marking placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was 

produced.” Id. at 24,664. If a PMF maker, however, seeks to have the PMF enter the 

marketplace, it must meet the Act’s other licensing and serial number requirements. Id. 

These provisions reflect one primary, fundamental concern: the criminal misuse of 

firearms, and in particular the frequent use of kit-made unserialized firearms in violent 

crime. See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,686 & n.107. These firearms can be easily acquired 

by persons otherwise prohibited from possessing them, see id. at 24,676, and make violent 

crimes more difficult to trace and solve, id. at 24,659. The Rule recognizes these 

substantial risks, and that these firearms offer no advantage to law-abiding gun owners.

Traditionally, a firearm made by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer must 

be engraved with identifying information: a unique serial number, as well as the make and 

model. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(C), 923(i). Using this information, ATF and its law 

enforcement partners can easily track firearms from the manufacturer or importer through 

the distribution chain to the first retail purchaser. See generally ATF Firearms Tracing 

Guide, ATF Publication 3312.13, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 

EXPLOSIVES, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/atf-firearms-tracing-guide-atf-p331213 (last visited Feb. 17, 2023). Tracing, as the Rule recognizes, is an “integral tool” 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 22 of 33 PageID 3897
17

for criminal investigators and has allowed law enforcement to ultimately bring justice and 

closure for countless families affected by gun violence. 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,659. 

Rather than comply with the regulations that facilitate this critical law enforcement 

tool, the ghost gun industry claims that gaps in those regulations allow it to make an endrun around the Gun Control Act. David Pucino, Ghost Guns: How Untraceable Firearms 

Threaten Public Safety, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER (May 2020), https://files.giffords.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/Giffords-Law-Center-Ghost-Guns-Report.pdf%20. The practical effect of selling the frame or receiver in a partially finished form is to circumvent federal and state gun regulations that apply to the industry that manufactures and sells these 

products and the buyers who purchase them. Id. Plaintiffs do not seriously deny this reality, nor do they offer any compelling alternative interest in selling or purchasing these kits. 

Nor could they. Just like finished frames and receivers, the sole function of unfinished

frames and receivers is to assemble a weapon designed and capable of expelling a projectile. Id. When constructed, these ghost guns are functionally indistinguishable from traditional firearms that would ordinarily be subject to the full panoply of federal firearms regulations like background checks, serialization, and transfer restrictions. Id. 

A visual example makes this similarity plain. The diagram below shows the parts 

of a traditional, ready-to-use Glock 17 handgun, with emphasis on the highlighted component of the “frame.” Untraceable: The Rising Spector of Ghost Guns, EVERYTOWN FOR 

GUN SAFETY (May 14, 2020), https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-rising-specter-ofghost-guns/. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 23 of 33 PageID 3898
18

Compare this traditional firearm to the diagram below, which shows the fully functional frame of the Glock 17 (on the left), next to the “unfinished” frame sold in the typical 

80% ghost gun kit (on the right). Id. 

As is evident, the difference between the two frames is minimal. The functional 

frame contains three drilled holes (the locking block pin hole, the trigger pin hole, and the 

trigger housing pin hole), and the rails filed off. By adding these simple features to the 

unfinished frame with common household tools, any individual can make the unfinished 

frame functional in hours or less. See PI Amici Curiae Br. at 20-21.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 24 of 33 PageID 3899
19

Worse still, ghost gun manufacturers make the assembly process even easier—often 

providing a kit with the tools and step-by-step instructions included to make the frame fully 

functional with an insignificant amount of time and effort. Ghost Guns, GIFFORDS,supra. 

Over the past decade, the market for such ghost gun kits has exploded, allowing untrained 

amateurs to assemble their own firearms quickly and easily from unregulated parts. Often 

referred to as “80% kits” because the frame or receiver is approximately 80% complete, 

these kits require limited additional machining—usually a minimal amount of drilling and 

milling that can be completed with everyday home tools—to create a functional frame or 

receiver. Id. 

Manufacturers of 80% kits make clear that their target consumer is not the artisan 

gunsmith, but rather anyone who wishes to buy and build a gun. Indeed, these entities 

advertise that “[n]o experience is required to master one of these build projects,” and “easyto-follow instructions” are often provided. Handgun Parts, 80% LOWERS, supra. It is thus 

unsurprising that the ghost gun Glock 17 is considered a “clone” of the traditional Glock 

17 and is advertised as such on gun kit websites. See, e.g., A Better-Than-Basic Glock 17 

Compatible Build List for Under $500, 3CR TACTICAL, https://3crtactical.com/a-betterthan-basic-glock-17-clone-build-list-for-under-500/ (last visited February 14, 2023). In 

short, ghost gun kits allow any individual, regardless of their ability to pass a background 

check, to build an unserialized and untraceable firearm with widely available tools and a 

few hours of work. 

This ability to evade federal firearms regulation is the defining feature, not a bug, 

of ghost guns. The resultant completed frame will offer the user the same functionality as 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 25 of 33 PageID 3900
20

a traditional firearm. There is only one main difference between the ghost gun Glock 17 

and the Glock 17 handgun manufactured by a licensed manufacturer or importer: the lack 

of a serial number on the ghost gun. Ghost Guns, GIFFORDS, supra. For law-abiding gun 

owners, there is no discernable advantage. But this difference, along with the lack of a 

background check requirement, makes ghost guns the weapon of choice for gun traffickers 

and legally prohibited persons, including those bent on violence. Id.; see also 87 Fed. Reg. 

at 24,659. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, ghost guns have been used frequently in violent crimes. 

One review of a limited sample of federal prosecutions from 2010 to April 2020 revealed 

that over 2,500 ghost guns were connected to criminal activity. Untraceable, EVERYTOWN, 

supra. In nearly half of these prosecutions, the defendants had been prohibited from possessing a firearm and would not have passed background check. Id. And other studies 

have confirmed that the increasing popularity of ghost gun kits have led to a corresponding 

increase in the use of ghost guns in crimes. What Are Ghost Guns, BRADY UNITED, 

https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-ghost-guns (last visited February 14, 

2023) (recording testimony from one ATF agent that “almost half our cases we’re coming 

across are these ghost guns”) . 

Tragically, ghost guns have also been used in multiple mass shootings. In one case, 

a shooter had already failed a background check but was nonetheless able to build an assault rifle from a ghost gun kit to kill five people on a college campus in Southern California. Id.; see also Carter Evans, Santa Monica Shooter Built His Own Weapon, CBS NEWS

(June 14, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/santa-monica-shooter-built-his-ownCase 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 26 of 33 PageID 3901
21

weapon/. In another, a sixteen-year-old California high school student killed two students 

and injured three others with a unserialized gun assembled from a kit. Dakin Andone, The 

Gunman In The Saugus High School Shooting Used A ‘Ghost Gun,’ Sheriff Says, CNN 

(Nov. 21, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/us/saugus-shooting-ghost-gun/index.html. The Rule itself notes that it was intended to counteract these terrible consequences. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,656 (noting that ATF had recovered privately-made firearms from 692 homicides or attempted homicides from 2016 to 2021). 

Despite the well-documented criminal consequences of ghost guns, many ghost gun 

manufacturers make no secret of their contempt for firearm regulations or the fact that their 

product is designed for those whose intended purpose is to subvert those regulations. For 

example, Cody Wilson, the CEO of Intervenor-Plaintiff Defense Distributed, was unapologetic when pressed with allegations that he “wants children to have guns,” responding 

only that his ghost gun technology intends to be “disruptive.” Cody Rutledge Wilson, 

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremistfiles/individual/cody-rutledge-wilson (last visited Feb. 17, 2023). The owner of Polymer80, one of the nation’s largest ghost gun manufacturers, has thumbed his nose at a

Nevada bill banning ghost guns, telling legislators: “[W]e, as Americans, just will not 

comply with [the bill] no matter what you do.” Why Outlawing Ghost Guns Didn’t Stop 

America’s Largest Maker of Ghost Gun Parts, PROPUBLICA (August 24, 2022), 

https://www.propublica.org/article/nevada-ghost-guns-polymer80-firearms-laws. This 

neglectful and reckless behavior only exacerbates the ongoing crisis. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 27 of 33 PageID 3902
22

As its meticulous responses to the over 290,000 public comments reflect, ATF exercised its careful judgment in promulgating this Rule to close a significant regulatory 

loophole in existing firearms regulations. 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,652-734. In doing so, as 

described below, ATF plainly acted within the statutory authority delegated to it by the 

Gun Control Act to carry out its provisions and principal purpose of counteracting criminal 

activity. 18 U.S.C. § 926. 

B. The Rule Prohibits Ghost Guns Without Exceeding ATF’s Statutory 

Authority or the Second Amendment

Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ histrionic assertions about a “constitutional coup,” 

VanDerStok Br. at 1, the Rule’s regulatory definitions fit comfortably within the scope of 

historical regulation under the Gun Control Act and the bounds of the Second Amendment. 

As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Gun Control Act’s principal purpose is 

to “curb crime by keeping ‘firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess 

them.’” Abramski, 573 U.S. at 181 (quoting Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 

824 (1974)). At the same time, the text of the Gun Control Act makes clear that “it is not 

the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens 

on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms” for 

appropriate purposes. Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, § 101, 82 Stat. 1213, 

1213–14. As the Government aptly explained, meeting these twin goals has often required 

that ATF engage in line-drawing exercises to adapt the Gun Control Act to meet its regulatory goals, as it has done here. Gov’t Br. at 42. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 28 of 33 PageID 3903
23

The Gun Control Act’s carefully calibrated balance is well mirrored in the Rule. 

The Gun Control Act does not define the terms “frame” and “receiver,” leaving the question of when “an unregulated piece of metal, plastic, or other material becomes a ‘frame or 

receiver’ that is a regulated item under federal law” to the executive branch. Id. at 41. By 

promulgating the Rule, ATF has merely updated applicable regulations to reflect advances 

in technology, an approach fully consistent with the Gun Control Act. Id. Indeed, under 

these circumstances, not regulating partially completed firearms would be directly contrary 

to the crime-fighting purpose of the Gun Control Act. See Abramski, 573 U.S. at 181. 

What is more, the Rule’s chosen means of addressing the undeniable ghost gun 

problem—extending its existing serialization regime—respects Second Amendment limitations. The Supreme Court has never seriously questioned—not in Heller, not in McDonald, and certainly not in Bruen—the right of the federal government to craft reasonable 

regulations on the commercial sale and production of firearms. New York State Rifle & 

Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2162 (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., joined by Roberts, 

C.J., concurring); see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (plurality opinion). To the contrary, 

Heller itself noted that certain classes of firearm regulations would be “presumptively lawful” such as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” and 

“laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Heller, 554 

U.S. at 626-27 & n.26. 

As described above, the Rule’s definitions merely expand the existing serialization 

regime to a previously unserialized class of firearms—ghost guns. In this way, the Rule 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 29 of 33 PageID 3904
24

constitutes a recognized and permissible qualification on commercial firearm sales. See, 

e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 713 (1987) (“[T]he regulatory goals of the [Gun 

Control Act] . . . ensure[] that weapons [are] distributed through regular channels and in a 

traceable manner and [make] possible the prevention of sales to undesirable customers and 

the detection of the origin of particular firearms.”); United States v. Hosford, 843 F.3d 161, 

166 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he prohibition against unlicensed firearm dealing is a longstanding 

condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms and is thus facially constitutional.”). Because the Constitution empowers the federal government to impose serialization requirements and other sale controls on traditional firearms, it surely allows ATF to 

impose those same controls on products designed to produce functionally indistinguishable 

firearms. 

Plaintiffs thus err in suggesting that Bruen and other Supreme Court precedent renders the Rule unconstitutional. See, e.g., BlackHawk Br. at 35-36; Br. in Supp. of Defense 

Distributed’s Mot. for Summ. J., (“Defense Distributed Br.”), ECF No. 166. Plaintiffs 

wholly fail to appreciate that “[t]here is a longstanding distinction between the right to keep 

and bears arms and commercial regulation of firearm sales.” Morehouse Enters. LLC v. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 2022 WL 3597299, at *8 (D.N.D. 

Aug. 16, 2022) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Tilotta, No. 3:19-cr04768, 2022 WL 3924282, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022) (“[T]he natural reading of ‘keep 

and bear arms’ does not include the ability to sell or transfer firearms unrestricted.”). And 

Plaintiffs have provided zero explanation as to how serialization impacts their specific right 

to “keep and bear” arms. See BlackHawk Br. at 35-36; Defense Distributed Br. at 2-5. The 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 30 of 33 PageID 3905
25 

Court should therefore reject Plaintiffs’ underdeveloped and erroneous constitutional arguments. 

CONCLUSION 

ATF has been careful to craft a rule that avoids infringing on the rights of lawabiding home gunsmiths. Accordingly, upholding the Rule respects our goals as lawabiding gun owners who support the Second Amendment and reasonable regulations. This 

Court should recognize as much by rejecting Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. 

For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in Defendants’ Opposition, the Plaintiffs’ 

and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, on February 22, 2023. 

/s/ Rebecca Wernicke Anthony

Rebecca Wernicke Anthony 

 Texas Bar No. 24093345 

JONES DAY 

2727 North Harwood Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: 214.969.4886

Facsimile: 214.969-5100 

ranthony@jonesday.com 

Barbara Mack Harding 

 Attorney-in-Charge 

 D.C. Bar No. 419250 

 (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jennifer L. Swize 

 D.C. Bar No. 490988 

 (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joseph J. Kiessling 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 31 of 33 PageID 3906
26

D.C. Bar No. 1630477

(admitted pro hac vice)

JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Telephone: (202) 879-3939

Facsimile: (202) 626-1700

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 32 of 33 PageID 3907
27 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and distribution to all 

registered participants of the CM/ECF System. 

/s/ Rebecca Wernicke Anthony_

Rebecca Wernicke Anthony 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 187 Filed 02/23/23 Page 33 of 33 PageID 3908