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; and 

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., a 

nonprofit corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

and 

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP 

INC. d/b/a 80 PERCENT ARMS, 

Intervenor-Plaintiff, 

 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-691-O 

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP INC. d/b/a 80 PERCENT ARMS’ 

[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 34 PageID 1015
Introduction

1. This lawsuit challenges the Biden Administration’s unlawful attempt to 

unilaterally rewrite federal law, create new criminal and civil liability where there were 

none, and destroy the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by 

privately making firearms.

2. Plaintiff BlackHawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms 

(collectively, as used herein, “BlackHawk”) is a business that produces and distributes 

receiver blanks—unfinished firearm parts from which individuals can make their own 

firearms—jigs, tools, and instructions, to customers across the United States.

3. ATF’s longstanding legal position has been that receiver blanks—unfinished 

firearm parts from which individuals can make their own firearms—jigs, tools, and related 

instructions do not fall within ATF’s regulatory jurisdiction. ATF has stated this position 

on its website, in classification determinations issued to manufacturers after reviewing 

product samples, and in litigation.

4. Receiver blanks did not fall under the purview of the Gun Control Act of 

1968 (“Gun Control Act” or “Act”), an Act with definitions carefully defined by Congress. 

Nor did the Act apply to receiver blanks combined with tools, jigs, instructions, and/or kits.

5. President Biden campaigned on a promise to prompt legislative action 

imposing new regulations on receiver blanks but was unable to persuade Congress to pass 

such legislation. 

6. Having failed to convince Congress, President Biden politically pressured 

Defendants to take unilateral executive action to accomplish his failed policy agenda. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 34 PageID 1016
2

7. In response to the Biden Administration’s political pressure, Defendants 

adopted a Final Rule. In doing so, Defendants (a) ignored administrative procedures; (b) 

flouted longstanding principles of congressional intent; and (c) illicitly redefined, 

inter alia, the Gun Control Act. 

8. First, the Final Rule unlawfully rewrites federal law by (1) expanding the 

definitions of “frame” and “receiver” so that ATF may regulate partial frames or receivers;

and (2) broadening Congress’ definition of “firearm” to include “a weapon parts kit that is 

designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” into 

a “firearm”.1 These expansions are in direct defiance of congressionally defined laws and 

regulations. At no point has Congress shown that it intended to regulate partial frames or 

receivers or weapons kits that could be readily made into a firearm, and there is no evidence 

to suggest otherwise. 

9. Second, the practical application of such broad sweeping definitions not only 

unlawfully increases Defendants’ regulatory powers, but also confers to Defendants the 

power to hold criminally liable businesses and citizens who simply wish to exercise their 

Second Amendment rights. 

10. Third, the Final Rule repudiates ATF’s longstanding legal position on 

receiver blanks, expressly stating that prior classification determinations “shall not 

continue to be valid or authoritative,” 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,741, and claiming that receiver 

blanks now fall within ATF’s regulatory jurisdiction.

1 The Final Rule is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-08026.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 34 PageID 1017
3

11. Fourth, beyond Defendants’ facially unlawful expansion of congressionally 

defined terms, the Final Rule has implicated the First Amendment. For example, ATF’s 

position that two identical pieces of metal could be treated differently depending on 

whether they are associated with, inter alia, instructions, jigs, tools, or some unknown 

combination, chills First Amendment speech used to guide lawful activity recognized by 

the Final Rule itself. Furthermore, the Final Rule’s requirement that submissions to ATF 

for classification determination must include the submitting party’s marketing materials 

unlawfully regulates speech protected by the First Amendment.

12. The Final Rule is an unconstitutional regulation that spells death for 

BlackHawk and similarly situated businesses. BlackHawk therefore asks this Court to 

declare that the Final Rule is unlawful, or in the alternative, to issue a preliminary 

injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule.

PARTIES

13. BlackHawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms (collectively, 

“BlackHawk”) is a corporation organized under California law that recently relocated to 

Tarrant County in Fort Worth, Texas. BlackHawk’s core business is manufacturing and 

distributing the very items Defendants seek to regulate under the Final Rule. BlackHawk

distributes its products to businesses and consumers throughout the United States, 

including within this district.

14. Defendant Merrick Garland is the Attorney General of the United States and 

the head of the United States Department of Justice, which oversees the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 34 PageID 1018
4

15. Defendant United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an agency of the 

United States that administers and enforces the principal federal gun control statutes, 

including the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. DOJ is 

located at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20530.

16. Defendant Steven Dettelbach is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and 

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

17. Defendant Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) 

is an agency of the United States that administers and enforces the principal federal gun 

control statutes, including the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968.

ATF is located at 99 New York Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 20226.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331.

19. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e)(1)(B) and 

(C). A substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in this district; a 

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district; 

and BlackHawk has engaged in business transactions in this district. 

20. BlackHawk has standing to assert the interests of both itself and its 

customers. See, e.g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

21. The Gun Control Act established the definition of a “firearm” for purposes 

of federal firearms regulations.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 5 of 34 PageID 1019
5

22. The Act states 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. 

23. The Act goes on to state that “this title is not intended to discourage or 

eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful 

purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or 

requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the 

provisions of this title.” § 101, 82 Stat. at 1214.

24. 18 U.S.C. § 921 defined “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. Such term does not include an 

antique firearm.” 

25. There is no statutory definition of a “frame or receiver.” 

26. 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 provided a one-sentence definition of a “firearm frame or 

receiver” as: “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.”

27. A strict licensing regime governs the importation, manufacture, and dealing

of products that constitute firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 923(i) requires licensed importers and 

licensed manufacturers to “identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 6 of 34 PageID 1020
6

receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by 

regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or 

manufacturer.”

28. Failure to follow these requirements can result in criminal liability. Under 

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1), it is a crime to violate “any other provision of this chapter,” referring 

to Title 18, Chapter 44, of the United States Code, which contains sections 921–931. It is 

therefore of paramount importance for law-abiding businesses in the firearms industry to 

have clarity and predictability about what products meet the definitions of a “firearm” and 

“frame or receiver.”

29. It is equally important for law-abiding customers and for those who may not 

possess firearms (prohibited possessors) to have clarity on what products constitute a 

“firearm” and “frame or receiver.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) makes it a crime for various 

categories of individuals “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess 

in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or 

ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The United States of America Has a Long Tradition of Individuals Privately 

Making Their Own Firearms 

30. Civilian gunmaking is a practice that dates back to the American colonies.

31. Despite the emergence of armories, mass production, and the innovation of 

prominent manufacturers, the role of the individual in making guns never went away.

32. Today, many law-abiding Americans make their own firearms using gun 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 7 of 34 PageID 1021
7

parts and receiver blanks, which are also commonly known as “incomplete receivers,” 

“unfinished receivers,” or “80% receivers.”

33. A receiver blank is a piece of raw material that has undergone some of the 

stages of manufacture necessary to create a firearm receiver, but which still requires 

additional machining to produce a functioning firearm receiver. The phrase “80% receiver” 

is not a legal term but refers to the colloquial understanding that receiver blanks have 

undergone 80% or less of the stages of manufacture necessary to produce a functioning 

receiver. The remaining stages of manufacture must be performed by the individual owner 

using appropriate machinery to produce a functioning receiver.

34. Receiver blanks are popular among do-it-yourself hobbyists, who appreciate

the challenge of using machinery to build a firearm from raw materials and unfinished 

components. These law-abiding citizens cherish the right of Americans to build their own 

firearms. 

35. Customers for receiver blanks include women and men, veterans, blue and 

white collar workers, retirees, and government employees all across the country.

II. Politicians Malign the Receiver-Blank Industry Despite Laws That Already 

Prohibit the Targeted Misconduct

36. The receiver-blank industry has been unfairly maligned by politicians and 

the media, who point to misconduct that is already prohibited by federal law as a 

justification for shutting down or criminalizing lawful businesses and preventing lawabiding Americans from privately making firearms. See infra (the Biden Administration’s 

statements). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 8 of 34 PageID 1022
8

37. For example, it is already illegal for a prohibited possessor to own a firearm

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and it is already illegal to engage in the business of selling or 

distributing firearms without a license under 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).

38. Even though a lawfully acquired firearm can be used in an illegal manner, 

that does not justify a complete destruction of businesses’ ability to sell firearms and 

individuals’ ability to purchase them. 

39. Similarly, even though lawfully, privately made firearms can be used in an 

illegal manner, that does not justify a complete destruction of businesses’ ability to sell 

receiver blanks jigs, tools and instructions, and individuals’ ability to purchase them and 

privately make firearms in a lawful manner.

III. ATF Previously Classified Receiver Blanks as Unregulated Materials

40. ATF has long held, and told the public, that receiver blanks do not meet the 

definitions of a “firearm” or “frame or receiver.” Its website states:

Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal?

Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a “firearm” are not subject 

to regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA). ATF has long held that items 

such as receiver blanks, “castings” or “machined bodies” in which the firecontrol cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the 

“stage of manufacture” which would result in the classification of a firearm 

according to the GCA.2

2 ATF, Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal?, 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-“80”-or-“unfinished”-receivers-illegal.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 9 of 34 PageID 1023
9

Are there restrictions on who can purchase receiver blanks?

The Gun Control Act (GCA) does not impose restrictions on receiver blanks 

that do not meet the definition of a “firearm.” . . . .

3

What is ATF doing in regards to people making their own firearms?

An individual may generally make a firearm for personal use. . . . .

4

Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?

No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. . . . .

5

41. ATF’s website also includes photographs of receiver blanks that ATF has 

determined are not regulated firearm receivers:6

3 ATF, Are there restrictions on who can purchase receiver blanks?, 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-restrictions-who-can-purchase-receiver-blanks. 4 ATF, What is ATF doing in regards to people making their own firearms?, 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-atf-doing-regards-people-making-their-ownfirearms.

5 ATF, Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?, 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personaluse.

6 See https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-restrictions-who-can-purchase-receiverblanks

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 10 of 34 PageID 1024
10

42. For the last several decades, ATF has permitted industry to request written 

determinations from ATF as to the classification of sample products. 

43. ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division conducts a thorough 

technological analysis of the sample and provides industry with a classification

determination as to whether the sample is a firearm regulated under the Gun Control Act 

or National Firearms Act.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 11 of 34 PageID 1025
11 

44. For example, in a recent lawsuit that dealt with whether a particular product 

was a “firearm,” the government submitted a certified administrative record containing 

numerous classification determinations sent to manufacturers stating that their receiverblank products were not firearms. See ATF’s Certified Set of Documents Comprising the 

Record at 64–70, California Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. ATF, No. 1:14-CV-1211 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015), ECF No. 19-3 (containing the images that follow). 

 

Submitted forging 

Accordingly, FTB finds that the submitted item is not a "firearm" as defined in the GCA. 

Please note that this classification is based on the item received and examined by our 

Branch. Any changes to its characteristics would require re-evaluation. 

Submitted forging, first view 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 12 of 34 PageID 1026
12 

45. Prior to the Biden Administration, ATF defended these classification 

determinations in litigation brought by gun-control activists: 

Plaintiffs’ challenges to ATF’s classifications also seek to undercut the 

process under which, for decades, ATF has reviewed numerous items to 

determine if they should be classified as “firearms” under the GCA, bringing 

to bear the agency’s technical, scientific, mechanical, and legal expertise. 

Receivers for the AR-15, the most common rifle in America, have a space 

within them called the fire-control cavity, which accommodates the firing 

components. The longstanding position of ATF is that, where a block of 

metal (or other material) that may someday be manufactured into a receiver 

bears no markings that delineate where the fire-control cavity is to be formed 

and has not yet been even partially formed, that item is not yet a receiver . . . . 

Submitted forging, second view 

Based on our examination, FTB finds that the submiued item is not a '·fireann" as 

defined in the GCA. Please note that this classification is based on the item received and 

examined by our Branch. Any changes to its characteristics would require re~valuation 

by FTB. 

. - Accordingly, FTB finds that the submitted item is not a "firearm" as defined in the GCA. 

Please note that this classification is based on the item received and examined by our 

Branch. Any changes to its characteristics would require re-evaluation by FTB. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 13 of 34 PageID 1027
13

Fed. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss at 2, California v. ATF, No. 3:20-CV-06761 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2020), ECF No. 29, 2020 WL 9849685.

The Record contains classification letters dating back to the 1970s. These 

classification letters make plain that ATF has consistently adopted a standard 

whereby the degree of machining to the frame or receiver determined 

whether the device constituted a firearm. . . .

. . . . Not one of the above-noted classification letters made reference 

to the amount of time that would be required to transform the given device 

into a fully functional frame or receiver. Further, these letters are only a few 

of the examples contained in the Record of ATF making determinations 

based on the degree of machining performed on the unfinished frame or 

receiver with no reference whatsoever to the time required to transform the 

device into a fully functional frame or receiver.

Fed. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 30–32, City of Syracuse v. ATF, 1:20-CV-06885 

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2021), ECF No. 98. 

46. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers invested capital, created American 

jobs, and sold lawful products to customers based on their good-faith reliance on ATF’s 

written classification determinations.

IV. The Biden Administration Announces That It “Will Not Wait for Congress to 

Act to Take Its Own Steps” on Gun Control

47. President Biden campaigned on a promise to “[s]top ‘ghost guns,’” referring 

to firearms “assembl[ed] . . . on [one’s] own . . . by buying a kit of disassembled gun 

parts.”7 Specifically, he promised to “pass[] legislation” to “stop the proliferation of these 

so-called ‘ghost guns.’ ”

7 The Biden Plan to End Our Gun Violence Epidemic, BIDEN-HARRIS DEMOCRATS, 

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 14 of 34 PageID 1028
14

48. After President Biden took office, members of Congress proposed bills 

changing the way ATF classifies receiver blanks not currently defined as firearms. See, 

e.g., S. 1558, 117th Cong. (2021) (Untraceable Firearms Act of 2021); H.R. 1454, 117th 

Cong. (2021) (Ghost Guns Are Guns Act). None of those bills have become law.

49. Because the Biden Administration could not accomplish its legislative goal 

through the constitutional process of bicameralism and presentment, it unlawfully sought 

to implement its policies through unilateral executive action.

50. On April 7, 2021, the Biden Administration announced that President Biden

was “reiterating his call for Congress to pass legislation” on firearms regulations.

8 The 

announcement stated that “this Administration will not wait for Congress to act to take its 

own steps” on gun control. The announcement instructed the United States Department of 

Justice to “within 30 days . . . issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation” of socalled “ghost guns.”

51. On April 8, 2021, President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Defendant 

Garland held a press conference on gun policy at the White House Rose Garden. President 

Biden stated that he “asked the Attorney General and his team to identify for me immediate, 

concrete actions I could take now without having to go through the Congress.”9

8 Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Initial Actions to Address the Gun Violence 

Public Health Epidemic, THE WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 7, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initialactions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/. 9 Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence Prevention, THE WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 8, 2021), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/08/remarks-by-presidentbiden-on-gun-violence-prevention/.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 15 of 34 PageID 1029
15

52. Defendant Garland stated in his remarks that “the proliferation of the socalled ghost guns” was caused by a “regulatory loophole” or “gap,”10 even though the 

proliferation of such products was actually the direct result of ATF’s carefully considered 

and legally correct decision to issue classification determinations approving the 

unregulated sale of such products.

53. On May 7, 2021, Defendant Garland signed ATF proposed rule 2021R-05, 

titled: “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms.”

54. On April 11, 2022, President Biden and Vice President Harris announced at

the White House Rose Garden that the Final Rule had been completed. President Biden 

stated that a “year ago this week . . . I instructed the Attorney General to write a regulation 

that would rein in the proliferation of ghost guns because I was having trouble getting 

anything passed in the Congress.”11 President Biden explained that the purpose of the Final 

Rule was to make it “illegal to manufacture” weapon parts kits and “[i]llegal for a licensed 

dealer to sell them” without complying with the same regulatory requirements governing 

the manufacture and sale of complete firearms.

55. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2022.

12

10 Defendant Garland’s Full Remarks on Gun Violence Prevention at the White House 

Rose Garden, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE (Apr. 8, 2021), 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-garland-s-full-remarks-gun-violenceprevention-white-house-rose-garden. 11 Remarks by President Biden Announcing Actions to Fight Gun Crime and His Nominee 

for ATF Director, Steve Dettelbach, THE WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 11, 2022), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/11/press-briefingby-press-secretary-jen-psaki-april-11-2022/. 12 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-08026

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 16 of 34 PageID 1030
16

V. ATF’s Unlawful and Unconstitutional Final Rule

A. Definition of a “Frame or Receiver” as Including “Partially Complete, 

Disassembled, or Nonfunctional” Frames and Receivers

56. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) defined a “firearm” as including “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” and “the frame or receiver of any such weapon,” 

but it does not define what constitutes a “frame or receiver.”

57. 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 provided a one-sentence definition of a “firearm frame or 

receiver” as: “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.”

58. The Final Rule deletes that definition of a “firearm frame or receiver” and 

replaces it with a convoluted multi-page definitions of “frame” and “receiver” that are

unconstitutionally vague and subjective.

59. Part of the proposed new definitions states:

Partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver. The 

terms “frame” or “receiver” shall 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 projective 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, 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 17 of 34 PageID 1031
17

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. 

87 Fed. Reg. at 24,739.

60. If item A can readily be made into item B, it is by definition not yet item B.

The Final Rule abuses the English language in order to expand ATF’s regulatory 

jurisdiction to cover materials that can “readily” be made into regulated products. 

61. This attempt to drastically expand ATF’s regulatory jurisdiction is in excess 

of ATF’s statutory authority.

B. The Final Rule Repudiates Prior Classification Determinations and, in 

Turn, Presents Issues Contrary to the Constitution

62. In classification determinations issued to manufacturers, ATF has stated that 

receiver blanks do not meet the definition of a regulated “firearm” under federal law. 

63. ATF has defended these classification determinations in litigation brought by 

gun-control activists. 

64. The Final Rule expressly repudiates ATF’s prior classification 

determinations:

Prior determinations by the Director that a partially complete, disassembled, 

or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a parts kit, was not, or did not 

include, a “firearm frame or receiver” under § 478.11, or “frame or receiver” 

under § 479.11, as those terms were defined prior to April 26, 2022, shall not 

continue to be valid or authoritative after that date. Such determinations shall 

include those in which the Director determined that the item or parts kit had 

not yet reached a stage of manufacture to be, or include, a “firearm frame or 

receiver” under § 478.11, or “frame or receiver” under § 479.11, as those 

terms were defined prior to [April 26, 2022].

87 Fed. Reg. at 24,741.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 18 of 34 PageID 1032
18

65. ATF’s complete reversal of its legal position is arbitrary, capricious, and an 

abuse of discretion.

66. The phrases “partially complete,” “may readily be completed, assembled, 

restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” and “stage of

manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon”

are so vague as to make it impossible for manufacturers, distributors, and customers to 

understand which product designs are regulated by the Final Rule and which are not.

67. These vague phrases, when combined with the Final Rule’s authorization of 

the ATF Director to “consider any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, 

instructions, guides, or marketing materials,” effectively delegate to the ATF Director 

unbounded, unconstitutional discretion to determine by diktat which products fall within 

ATF’s jurisdiction.

68. There is no reason why the existence of “instructions” or “tools” would have 

any bearing on whether an item meets the legal definition of a firearm “frame or receiver.”

69. Nevertheless, ATF has recently stated that a “frame or receiver” piece may 

be treated differently depending on whether the “frame or receiver” is accompanied by 

tools, jigs, and instructions or some combination thereof. 

70. If a “frame or receiver” is combined with tools, jigs, and instructions, ATF’s 

position is that this “frame or receiver” is a firearm. 

71. Contrarily, ATF has suggested that a “frame or receiver” on its own—

particularly without instructions—would not constitute a firearm. As a result, BlackHawk

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 19 of 34 PageID 1033
19

and other similarly situated companies have had to delete instructions from their company 

websites in order to avoid potential criminal charges and to survive as business. 

72. The possibility that two identical pieces of mental (the “frame or receiver”) 

could be treated differently depending on whether they are associated with instructions 

chills First Amendment speech that guides lawful activity recognized by the Final Rule 

itself. 

73. A separate requirement under the Final Rule also implicates the First 

Amendment. Specifically, the Final Rule requires request to ATF for classification 

determination to be submitted under penalty of perjury and to include “any instructions, 

guides, templates, jigs, equipment, tools, or marketing materials that are made available to 

the purchaser or recipient of the item.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,666.

74. It logically flows that ATF’s new classification determinations will decide 

whether the speech used in marketing materials is, in the eyes of Defendants, permissible.

75. Such regulation of speech is in direct violation of the First Amendment, and 

the suppression of free discourse and self-censorship by U.S. citizens caused by the 

profound uncertainty regarding enforcement of the Final Rule constitutes a loss of civil 

liberties.

76. Because the definition of a firearm “frame or receiver” has consequences for

criminal liability, vagueness in that definition violates due process of law. See Sessions v. 

Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). Additionally, the rule of lenity applies, and Chevron

deference is inappropriate. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004); United States v. 

Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992). Furthermore, ATF’s admitted 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 20 of 34 PageID 1034
20

inconsistent determinations concerning the same metal piece (“frame or receiver”) 

depending on whether it is associated with instructions infringes upon BlackHawk’s and 

its customers’ First Amendment rights.

C. Definition of “Readily” by Reference to Eight Unranked, Unweighted 

Factors

77. The Final Rule creates a new definition of “readily” as a “process, action, or 

physical state that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the 

most efficient, speediest, or easiest process, action, or physical state.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 

24,735; see also id. at 24,747.

78. The Final Rule then provides a non-exclusive list of eight unranked, 

unweighted factors, none of which is dispositive. 

 The first factor is “(a) Time, i.e., how long it takes to finish the process.”

 The second factor is “(b) Ease, i.e., how difficult it is to do so.”

 The third factor is “(c) Expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required.”

 The fourth factor is “(d) Equipment, i.e., what tools are required.”

 The fifth factor is “(e) Parts availability, i.e., whether additional parts are 

required, and how easily they can be obtained.”

 The sixth factor is “(f) Expense, i.e., how much it costs.”

 The seventh factor is “(g) Scope, i.e., the extent to which the subject of the 

process must be changed to finish it.”

 The eighth factor is “(h) Feasibility, i.e., whether the process would damage or 

destroy the subject of the process, or cause it to malfunction.”

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 21 of 34 PageID 1035
21

79. By making the definition of a “frame or receiver” turn on whether the product 

“may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a 

frame or receiver” and then defining the word “readily” in such a vague manner, the Final 

Rule creates an unconstitutionally vague standard and effectuates an unconstitutional 

delegation of legislative authority to the ATF Director.

D. Definition of a “Firearm” as Including Weapon Parts Kits

80. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) defined the term “firearm” as including four categories 

of items: “(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. Such term does not include an antique firearm.”

81. 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 defined a “firearm” as including the four categories of 

items contained in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), tracking the statutory text almost verbatim: “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.”

82. The Final Rule amended 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 by adding the following fifth 

category to the definition of a “firearm,” which has no basis in the statutory text of 18 

U.S.C. § 921(a)(3):

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 22 of 34 PageID 1036
22

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 “frame or receiver.”

87 Fed. Reg. at 24,735.

83. Under this new provision, a collection of parts, none of which independently 

has ever constituted a firearm, are now characterized by the government as a firearm based 

on an arbitrary determination that the items, when grouped together, can “readily” be 

assembled into a firearm.

84. By adding weapon parts kits to the definition of a “firearm,” the Final Rule 

takes an existing rule that closely tracks the four statutory categories of “firearms” set forth 

by Congress and adds a brand new fifth category that Congress did not include. 

85. This violates the plain, unambiguous text of the statute, which evinces 

Congress’s intent to create only four categories of “firearms,” not five. 

86. By adding a fifth category with no basis in the statutory text, the Final Rule 

goes beyond merely interpreting or clarifying the statute adopted by Congress and instead 

rewrites it.

E. New Regulations on “Privately Made Firearms” That Are Sweeping in 

Scope

87. The Final Rule created a new term, “privately made firearm,” which it 

defines as 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 23 of 34 PageID 1037
23

placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 

24,735.

88. The Final Rule states that “licensees must legibly and conspicuously identify 

each privately made firearm or ‘PMF’ received or otherwise acquired (including from a 

personal collection) not later than the seventh day following the date of receipt or other 

acquisition, or before the date of disposition (including to a personal collection), whichever 

is sooner.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,742. It further states that “PMFs must be identified by 

placing, or causing to be placed under the licensee’s direct supervision, an individual serial 

number on the frame or receiver, which must not duplicate any serial number placed by the 

licensee on any other firearm.” Id.

89. The Final Rule also requires licensees to “identify . . . or cause another 

person to so identify, each privately made firearm received or otherwise acquired 

(including from a personal collection) by the licensee” before the effective date of the Final 

Rule “within sixty (60) days from that date, or prior to the date of final disposition 

(including to a personal collection), whichever is sooner.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,743.

90. The Final Rule also requires licensees to retain records indefinitely until the 

“business or licensed activity is discontinued.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,746. This requirement is 

tantamount to creating an unlawful national gun registry for privately made firearms.

91. The Final Rule’s regulations on privately made firearms are so onerous that 

many licensees will cease to work with privately made firearms to avoid the Final Rule’s 

excessive regulatory burdens. The lack of availability of basic services for owners of 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 24 of 34 PageID 1038
24

privately made firearms will deter individuals from exercising their historically recognized 

right to make their own firearms.

92. The coercive effect of these regulations will be to wipe out the secondary 

resale market for receiver blanks and firearms produced by individuals from receiver 

blanks, and more broadly, to eliminate the consumer market for receiver blanks entirely.

93. The Final Rule’s excessive regulations on “privately made firearms” 

cumulatively violate the constitutional rights of BlackHawk and its customers.

94. To the extent the Final Rule’s regulations on “privately made firearms” apply 

to purely intrastate activities, they exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce 

Clause.

95. The Final Rule’s excessive regulations on “privately made firearms” 

cumulatively effectuate unconstitutional takings in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

VI. The Final Rule Will Destroy BlackHawk’s Business

96. BlackHawk’s business is the distribution of receiver blanks, jigs, tools, and 

instructions to individual customers and businesses that lawfully market the products to 

customers who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights by making their own 

firearms. 

97. BlackHawk fulfills orders by shipping receiver blanks, jigs, tools, and 

instructions to customers and businesses across the country that place orders for products. 

The bulk of its customers are out of state.

98. By unlawfully enacting legislative changes through its redefinitions of 

“firearm” and “frame or receiver,” the Final Rule reversed ATF’s longstanding legal 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 25 of 34 PageID 1039
25

position and subjected currently unregulated receiver blanks to the same regulatory 

requirements as fully functional firearms. 

99. By delegating to the ATF Director unbounded discretion to apply vague and 

capacious standards for what constitutes a “firearm” and “frame or receiver,” the Final 

Rule makes it impossible for manufacturers to determine with any reasonable certainty 

which regulatory requirements apply to a product design.

100. By imposing unlawful and excessive requirements on licensees who take

“privately made firearms” into their custody, the Final Rule will eliminate consumer 

demand for receiver blanks.

101. In summation, the Final Rule will wipe out BlackHawk’s business or cause 

BlackHawk and its owners and employees to face criminal and civil liability.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

The Final Rule Exceeds Defendants’ Statutory Authority

102. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by

reference.

103. The Final Rule, including its definitions of “frame or receiver,” “readily,” 

and “firearm,” and its regulations on “privately made firearms,” constitutes an unlawful 

expansion of Defendants’ statutory authority.

104. The Final Rule’s provisions relating to and purporting to define “frame or 

receiver” are facially unlawful. 

105. The Final Rule presupposes a general authority to regulate weapon parts 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 26 of 34 PageID 1040
26

which Defendants do not possess. 

106. The Final Rule is “not in accordance with law” and is “in excess of statutory 

jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C).

COUNT II

The Adoption of the Final Rule Violates the Separation of Powers

107. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by 

reference.

108. Article I, § 1 of the Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted 

shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

109. Article I, § 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires that “Every Bill” be 

passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate and presented to the President 

“before it [may] become a Law.”

110. The Final Rule is not a valid interpretation of federal law. It is an 

unconstitutional attempt by Defendants to exercise legislative powers that belong to 

Congress. And it is an unconstitutional attempt to rewrite statutes without satisfying the 

requirements of bicameralism and presentment.

COUNT III

The Final Rule is Unconstitutionally Vague

111. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by

reference.

112. The Supreme Court has recognized that criminal laws must provide fair 

notice to the public of what conduct is proscribed. Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 

(2018). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 27 of 34 PageID 1041
27

113. Numerous aspects of the Final Rule are unconstitutionally vague, including 

its definitions of a “frame or receiver,” “readily,” and “firearm.”

114. These definitions are so vague that even an experienced lawyer specializing 

in firearms law cannot possibly say for certain which products fall within those definitions.

The ordinary business and citizen therefore could not possibly understand how to properly 

comply with the statutes without risking criminal sanction and loss of liberty. 

COUNT IV

The Final Rule is Arbitrary, Capricious, and an Abuse of Discretion

115. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by 

reference.

116. ATF previously stated on its website that receiver blanks do not meet the 

definitions of a “firearm” or “frame or receiver.” 

117. ATF previously reviewed product samples from industry and issued written 

classification determinations stating that receiver blanks do not meet the definitions of a 

“firearm” or “frame or receiver.”

118. Prior to the Biden Administration, ATF routinely defended the lawfulness of 

those classification determinations in litigation.

119. The Final Rule reverses ATF’s longstanding correct legal interpretation, 

which has generated significant reliance interests, without a reasonable explanation.

120. The Final Rule contains internally self-contradictory provisions.

121. ATF’s stated explanation for the Final Rule is a pretext for its true goal of 

unlawfully expanding its jurisdiction.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 28 of 34 PageID 1042
28

122. ATF did not adequately consider alternative regulatory approaches that could 

have avoided the destruction of businesses such as BlackHawk.

123. The Final Rule is therefore “arbitrary,” “capricious,” and “an abuse of 

discretion.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

COUNT V

The Final Rule Was Adopted Without 

Observance of Procedure Required by Law

124. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by 

reference.

125. The process of notice-and-comment rulemaking requires an agency to “give 

interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments” and to give “consideration of the relevant matter 

presented.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).

126. Approximately 290,000 members of the public submitted comments to the 

proposed rule. Defendants did not adequately consider all relevant arguments raised in 

those comments and provide appropriately reasoned responses to them. 

127. When agencies adopt rules, they must publish a “concise general statement 

of their basis and purpose.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).

128. The Final Rule does not provide an accurate and adequate “concise general 

statement” of its basis and purpose. 

129. The Final Rule was therefore adopted “without observance of procedure 

required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 29 of 34 PageID 1043
29

COUNT VI

The Final Rule Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine

130. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by 

reference.

131. If this Court concludes that the Final Rule is authorized by statute, then the 

statutory scheme unconstitutionally delegates legislative power with no intelligible 

principle, violating the nondelegation doctrine. See A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. 

United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935). 

132. Various provisions of the Final Rule effectuate a double delegation by 

interpreting Congress’s delegation of authority to ATF as allowing for the promulgation of

a rule that in turn delegates to the ATF Director unbounded discretion to create and 

unilaterally revise legislative standards.

COUNT VII

The Final Rule is Contrary to Constitutional Right, Power, Privilege, or Immunity

133. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by 

reference.

134. The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear 

Arms.”

135. The Ninth Amendment recognizes that the people have inalienable rights not 

expressly enumerated in the Constitution. 

136. The Final Rule violates the rights of BlackHawk and its customers to keep 

and bear arms, to engage in lawful self-defense, to make their own firearms, to possess 

property lawfully acquired, and to earn a living by manufacturing and selling lawful goods 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 30 of 34 PageID 1044
30

in commerce. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (allowing a business to vindicate 

the constitutional rights of customers).

137. The Final Rule is therefore “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, 

or immunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

COUNT VIII

The Final Rule’s Regulations on “Privately Made Firearms”

Exceed the Limits of the Commerce Clause

138. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by

reference.

139. To the extent the Final Rule imposes regulations on intrastate activities with 

no interstate nexus, those requirements exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce 

Clause. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

COUNT IX

The Final Rule Chills First Amendment Rights

140. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by 

reference. 

141. ATF’s inconsistent and arbitrary treatment of receiver blanks—on its own 

(not a firearm) versus accompanied by tools, jigs, and instructions (firearm)—has forced 

BlackHawk to regulate its speech by deleting instructions from its website in order to 

survive as a business. 

142. The possibility that two identical pieces of metal could be treated differently 

depending on whether they are associated with instructions chills First Amendment speech 

that guides lawful activity recognized by the Final Rule itself. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 31 of 34 PageID 1045
31

143. The Final Rule also requires requests to ATF for classification determination

to be submitted under penalty of perjury and to include “any instructions, guides, templates, 

jigs, equipment, tools, or marketing materials that are made available to the purchaser or 

recipient of the item.” 87 Fed. Reg. at 24,666. ATF’s new classification determinations 

will therefore determine whether the speech used in marketing materials is permissible.

144. The Final Rule impermissibly regulates the speech of BlackHawk in direct 

violation of the First Amendment. 

COUNT X

The Final Rule Effectuates a Regulatory Taking of “Privately Made Firearms”

Without Just Compensation

145. All preceding paragraphs of this complaint are hereby incorporated by

reference.

146. The Supreme Court has recognized that the appropriation of personal 

property by the government without just compensation can violate the Fifth Amendment’s 

Takings Clause. See Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 351, 357 (2015).

147. The Supreme Court has also recognized that onerous government regulations 

can effectuate a regulatory taking. See Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 

U.S. 104, 124 (1978) (noting that the Court looks at the “economic impact of the 

regulation” and “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investmentbacked expectations”); Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922) (“[I]f

regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.”).

148. The Final Rule seeks to require licensees with “privately made firearms” in 

their inventories to either mark them according to the Final Rule’s specifications, destroy 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 32 of 34 PageID 1046
32 

them, or “voluntarily” turn them over to a law enforcement agency. The Final Rule places 

no restrictions on what the government may choose to do with “privately made firearms” 

that are “voluntarily” surrendered to the government. 

149. The Final Rule’s regulations on “privately made firearms” effectuate a

regulatory taking of personal property without just compensation. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff asks this Court to enter an order and judgment: 

a. Declaring that the Final Rule is unlawful; 

b. Issuing preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants 

from enforcing the Final Rule; 

c. Awarding Intervenor-Plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable 

attorney’s fees; and 

d. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Brian D. Poe 

BRIAN D. POE 

TX Bar No. 24056908 

BRIAN D. POE, ATTORNEY AT LAW PLLC 

The Bryce Building 

909 Throckmorton Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Phone: (817) 870-2022 

Fax: (817) 977-6501 

bpoe@bpoelaw.com 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 33 of 34 PageID 1047
33

Michael J. Sullivan

MA Bar No. 487210

Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming

J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.

MA Bar No. 703170

Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming

Nathan P. Brennan 

MN Bar No. 389954

Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming

ASHCROFT LAW FIRM LLC

200 State Street, 7th Floor

Boston, MA 02109

Phone: (617) 573-9400

Fax: (617) 933-7607

msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com

camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com

nbrennan@ashcroftlawfirm.com

Counsel for Intervenor-Plaintiff BlackHawk

Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent 

Arms

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 77-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 34 of 34 PageID 1048