IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK; MICHAEL G. 

ANDREN; TACTICAL MACHINING, LLC, a 

limited liability company; FIREARMS POLICY 

COALITION, INC., a nonprofit corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

and

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP, 

INC.; DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED; and SECOND 

AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United States; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 

STEVEN DETTELBACH, in his official capacity as 

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives; and BUREAU OF 

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 

EXPLOSIVES

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O 

 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 140 Filed 12/23/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1877
1 

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rule 

56.1–56.7, Plaintiffs Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael G. Andren, Tactical Machining, LLC, and 

Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully move for summary 

judgment1 against Defendants Merrick Garland, United States Department of Justice, Steven 

Dettelbach, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (collectively, 

“Agencies”) on the following claims within their Amended Petition for Judicial Review of Agency 

Action, ECF No. 93. 

Summary

COUNT I – That the Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms

(“Final Rule”), 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652, 24,667 (Apr. 26, 2022) violated the Administrative Procedure 

Act (“APA”) in that it exceeds the Agencies’ statutory authority. Insofar as that claim remains 

appropriate for summary judgment, Plaintiffs hereby request to incorporate their briefing 

addressing that specific issue. See ECF Nos. 16, 93, 133 (collectively “Excess Authority Briefs”). 

COUNT II – That the Final Rule violated the APA in that it was promulgated without 

observance of procedure required by law, specifically without adequate notice and opportunity for 

comment. 

COUNT III – That the Final Rule violates the APA, in that the Agencies failed to 

adequately explain a statutory interpretation diametrically opposed to their prior interpretation and 

failed to consider important aspects of the problem. 

1 Though Plaintiffs do not move for summary judgment on all claims contained within their 

Amended Petition, ECF No. 93, Plaintiffs do move for summary judgment on all claims contained 

within their Amended Petition that were not, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, consolidated with the 

preliminary injunction proceedings and advanced to a hearing on the merits. Thus, Plaintiffs do 

not construe this motion as one for “partial” summary judgment, as contemplated by LR 56.3(c). 

However, if Plaintiffs misconstrue the requirements of LR 56.3(c), they respectfully request the 

Court treat this motion as if properly styled. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 140 Filed 12/23/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1878
2

COUNT IV – That the Final Rule violates the APA and principles of the United States 

Constitution, in that the Agencies, part of the Executive Branch, engaged in legislative acts without 

being delegated that authority by Congress.

COUNT V – That the Final Rule violates the APA and principles of the United States 

Constitution, in that the Agencies, part of the Executive Branch, exceeded their authority to “take 

Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

COUNT VI – That the Final Rule violates the APA and principles of the United States 

Constitution, in that the Final Rule fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence with notice of 

what the law requires and forbids and is therefore unconstitutionally vague for failing to allow for 

due process.

COUNT VII – That the Final Rule violates the APA and principles of the United States 

Constitution, in that the Final Rule regulates and chills speech based on the speaker and/or the 

content of such speech.

Plaintiffs submit that the matters required under Rule 56.3 are also set forth in the Brief, 

which is being filed concurrently herewith according to Local Rules 7.1 and 56.5. The Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment collectively includes this Motion and the Plaintiffs’ Brief in 

Support. 

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and grant 

the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2022

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 140 Filed 12/23/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1879
3 

Respectfully submitted,

R. Brent Cooper (TX Bar No. 04783250) 

Benjamin D. Passey (TX Bar No. 24125681) 

COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 712-9500 

Telecopy: (214) 712-9540 

brent.cooper@cooperscully.com 

ben.passey@cooperscully.com 

Cody J. Wisniewski* (CO Bar No. 50415) 

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION

5550 Painted Mirage Road, Suite 320 

Las Vegas, NV 89149 

Telephone: (916) 378-5785 

Telecopy: (916) 476-2392 

cwi@fpchq.org 

/s/ Erin M. Erhardt 

Kaitlyn D. Schiraldi* (TN Bar No. 039737) 

Erin M. Erhardt* (CO Bar No. 49360) 

MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION

2596 S. Lewis Way

Lakewood, CO 80227 

Telephone: (303) 292-2021 

Telecopy: (877) 349-7074 

kschiraldi@mslegal.org 

eerhardt@mslegal.org 

*Admitted pro hac vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 140 Filed 12/23/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1880
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of December 2022, I electronically filed the 

foregoing using this Court’s CM/ECF system.

I certify that all participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users and service will be 

accomplished by this Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Erin M. Erhardt 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 140 Filed 12/23/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1881