UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING 

GROUP INC. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms,

 Intervenor-Plaintiff,

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED, and

THE SECOND AMENDMENT 

FOUNDATION, INC.

 Intervenors-Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official 

Capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED AND THE 

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 165 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 3058
Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (“SAF”) move for 

summary judgment against Defendants Merrick Garland, United States Department of Justice, 

Steven Dettelbach, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Defense Distributed, SAF, and the Defendants agree that the Defendants will respond to 

this motion at the same time and in the same filing as they are scheduled to respond to the other 

motions for summary judgment. They also agree that Defense Distributed and SAF can reply in 

accordance with the current scheduling order, Doc. 105 at 2 (“Reply & Response to Cross-Motion 

due 21 days after Defendants’ response and cross-motion are filed”).

Argument

I. Count One: APA § 706(2)(A), (C)—Statutory Contradiction.

Defense Distributed and SAF move for summary judgment on Count One of Defense 

Distributed and SAF’s complaint, see Doc. 143 at 20-21, ¶¶ 64-66, by joining and adopting the 

motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael G. Andren, 

Tactical Machining, LLC, and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) as to Count 

I of their complaint, Doc. 140 at 1 (motion); Doc. 141 at 9, 47-50 (brief), and the motion for 

summary judgment of Intervenor-Plaintiff BlackHawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent 

Arms (hereinafter “Blackhawk”) as to Count I of their complaint, Doc. 144 at 1-3 (motion); Doc. 

145 at 17 & n.8, 41-42 (brief). 

II. Count Two: APA § 706(2)(A)—Failure to consider.

Defense Distributed and SAF move for summary judgment against Defendants on Count 

Two of Defense Distributed and SAF’s complaint, see Doc. 143 at 22-23, ¶¶ 67-69, which no other 

party asserts, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 165 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 3059
III. Count Three: APA § 706(2)(A), (C)—Delegation.

Defense Distributed and SAF move for summary judgment against Defendants on Count 

Three of Defense Distributed and SAF’s complaint, see Doc. 143 at 23-24, ¶¶ 70-73, by joining 

and adopting the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs as to Count IV of their 

complaint, Doc. 140 at 2 (motion); Doc. 141 at 40-50 (brief), and the motion for summary 

judgment filed by BlackHawk as to Count I of its complaint, Doc. 144 at 1-3 (motion); Doc. 145 

at 40-42 (brief).

IV. Count Four: APA § 706(2)(A), (C)—Change of position.

Defense Distributed and SAF also move for summary judgment against Defendants on 

Count Four of Defense Distributed and SAF’s complaint, see Doc. 143 at 24-25, ¶¶ 74-76, by 

joining and adopting the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs as to Count III of their 

complaint, Doc. 140 at 1 (motion); Doc. 141 at 9-10, 21-24, 47-50 (brief), and the motion for 

summary judgment filed by BlackHawk as to Count I of its complaint, Doc. 144 at 1-3 (motion); 

Doc. 145 at 24-25, 41-42 (brief).

V. Count Five: APA § 706(2)(B)—Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Defense Distributed and SAF also move for summary judgment against Defendants on 

Count Five of Defense Distributed and SAF’s complaint, see Doc. 143 at 25, ¶¶ 77-80, by joining 

and adopting the motion for summary judgment filed by BlackHawk as to Count I of its complaint, 

Doc. 144 at 1-3 (motion); Doc. 145 at 34-37, 41-42 (brief).

VI. Count Six: APA § 706(2)(B)—Due Process Clause.

Defense Distributed and SAF also move for summary judgment against Defendants on 

Count Six of Defense Distributed and SAF’s complaint, see Doc. 143 at 25-27, ¶¶ 81-86, by joining 

and adopting the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs as to Count VI of their 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 165 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3060
complaint, Doc. 140 at 2 (motion); Doc. 141 at 26-35, 47-50 (brief), and the motion for summary 

judgment filed by BlackHawk as to Count I of its complaint, Doc. 144 at 1-3 (motion); Doc. 145 

at 32-34, 41-42 (brief). 

VII. Briefing schedule

Defense Distributed, SAF, and the Defendants agree that the Defendants will respond to 

this motion at the same time and in the same filing as they are scheduled to respond to the other 

motions for summary judgment. They also agree that Defense Distributed and SAF can reply in 

accordance with the current scheduling order, Doc. 105 at 2 (“Reply & Response to Cross-Motion 

due 21 days after Defendants’ response and cross-motion are filed”).

Conclusion

For these reasons, Defense Distributed and SAF request that the Court issue a summary 

judgment holding the Final Rule unlawful, setting it aside, and enjoining its enforcement. See

Doc. 143 at 27, ¶¶ 88-90. The request for costs and attorney’s fees, id. at 27, ¶ 93, should be 

addressed thereafter.

Date: January 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Chad Flores 

Chad Flores

Texas Bar No. 24059759

cflores@beckredden.com

Beck Redden LLP

1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500

Houston, TX 77010

(713) 951-3700

(713) 951-3720 Fax

Counsel for Defense Distributed and the Second 

Amendment Foundation, Inc.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 165 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 3061