UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

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

 v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his 

official capacity as Attorney General 

of the United States, et al., 

 Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW P. VARISCO

I, Matthew P. Varisco, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, 

as follows: 

Introduction

1. I am the Assistant Director for the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services

(Regulatory Operations) within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF), United States Department of Justice (DOJ). I have been in this 

position for 9 months, and have also served as an ATF Special Agent for over 22

years, including as the Special Agent in Charge of the Philadelphia Field Division, 

which encompasses the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Before that, I was an ATF 

Industry Operations Investigator for over 2 years. I hold a Master of Science degree in 

Criminal Justice from Iona University, New Rochelle, New York, and a Master of 

Science degree in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID 4834
-2-

Pennsylvania. I have testified in numerous grand jury proceedings as well as criminal

trials and hearings in U.S. District Court.

2. In my current senior executive position, I direct policy, conduct planning, and oversee 

rulemakings for Bureau-wide programmatic offices, including ATF’s National Tracing 

Center Division, Firearms Ammunition Technology Division, Regulatory Affairs 

Division, and National Firearms Act Division. These divisions support every aspect of 

ATF’s mission to protect the public and reduce violent crime throughout the United 

States. I supervise around 833 personnel and currently manage an approximately $57

million budget. 

3. I am authorized to provide this Declaration on ATF’s behalf and am providing it in 

support of the Defendants' Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in this civil 

case. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge and belief, my training and 

experience, as well as information conveyed to me by ATF personnel in the course of 

my official duties. This declaration does not set forth all of the knowledge and 

information I have on the topics discussed herein and it does not state all of the harms 

to ATF and the public from the judgment in this case. 

4. I am familiar with the definition of “firearm” and the enforcement provisions in the 

Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (“GCA”), and the National Firearms Act of 

1934, as amended (“NFA”). I am also familiar with ATF’s Final Rule, “Definition of 

‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” (“Rule”), 87 FR 24652 (Apr. 26, 2022), 

which implemented several of these GCA and NFA provisions.

5. Congress and the Attorney General delegated the responsibility for administering and 

enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF, subject to the direction of the 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID 4835
-3- 

Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1)-(2); 28 

C.F.R. 0.130(a)(1)–(2). 

6. ATF’s top priority is public safety. ATF recognizes the role that firearms play in 

violent crimes and, as part of its efforts to administer and enforce the GCA and NFA, 

ATF pursues an integrated regulatory and enforcement strategy. ATF uses the GCA 

and NFA to target, investigate, and recommend prosecution of offenders to reduce the 

level of violent crime and to enhance public safety. ATF also takes steps to increase 

State and local awareness of available federal prosecution under these statutes through, 

among other things, devoting its limited resources to developing and presenting 

relevant training and conducting outreach. 

7. ATF uses its regulatory authority to similarly fulfill its public safety mission. In order to 

curb the illegal use of firearms and enforce the federal firearms laws, ATF issues 

licenses to firearms manufacturers, importers, dealers, and curio or relic collectors, and 

conducts federal firearms licensee (“licensee”) qualification and compliance 

inspections. In addition to aiding the enforcement of federal requirements for firearm 

purchases, compliance inspections of existing licensees focus on assisting law 

enforcement to identify and apprehend criminals who illegally purchase and possess 

firearms. As part of this effort, ATF also takes steps to increase awareness of the legal 

obligations among the firearms industry and the public. To accomplish this, ATF 

devotes its limited resources to educational campaigns and helping to ensure that those 

engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms follow the 

law and have the essential education, training, and support to comply with federal law. 

8. ATF issues rulemakings, rulings, forms, open letters, public safety advisories, Q&As, 

marking and recordkeeping variances (alternate methods to comply with the 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID 4836
-4- 

regulations), and a variety of publications to implement, administer, and enforce the 

GCA and NFA. 

9. Among the critical public safety issues ATF has identified and attempted to address is

the impact of the proliferation of unserialized and unregulated firearms on efforts to 

reduce violent crime, including: (1) the proliferation of “privately made firearms” 

(“PMFs”), sometimes referred to as “ghost guns;” and (2) limitations of certain 

regulatory definitions that, as described below, could result in the vast majority of 

firearms in circulation in the United States having no frame or receiver. 

The Rule

10. This rule updated the regulatory definitions of “frame or receiver,” “firearm,” and 

associated marking and recordkeeping regulations. This update helped prevent 

firearms, particularly, easy-to-complete firearm parts kits, from falling into the hands of 

felons and other prohibited persons1 who, without the Rule, were able to purchase 

them without a background check or transaction records. The Rule also curbs the 

proliferation of unserialized privately made firearms, typically assembled from those 

kits, by ensuring that those weapons, or the frames or receivers of those weapons, are 

subject to the same requirements as commercially produced firearms whenever they 

are accepted into inventory by licensees. This, in turn, helps law enforcement solve 

crime by providing law enforcement officers with the ability to trace those weapons to 

a potential suspect if they are later found at a crime scene.

1 Among other GCA prohibitions, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) makes it unlawful for persons who fall into one or more 

of the following categories of "prohibited persons" to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms: felons, 

fugitives from justice, drug abusers, persons adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental 

institution, illegal aliens, certain nonimmigrant aliens, persons dishonorably discharged from the military, 

persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, persons subject to a qualifying domestic violence 

restraining order, and persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. 

Additionally, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), juveniles under the age of 21 are prohibited from purchasing 

firearms other than a rifle or shotgun from a licensee, and if under 18, any firearms.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID 4837
-5- 

11. ATF issued the Rule to increase public safety with the goal of ensuring proper 

marking, recordkeeping, and traceability of all firearms manufactured, imported, or 

otherwise acquired, and sold or otherwise disposed of by licensees.

12. I am aware that in an Opinion and Order dated June 30, 2023, and a Final Judgment 

dated July 5, 2023, the district court in VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691-O (N.D. 

Tex.), determined that two provisions of the Rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and 

Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652f (Apr. 26, 2022), exceeded ATF’s 

regulatory authority, and vacated the Rule.

13. The Court’s prior preliminary injunction decisions and June 30 Opinion and Order 

were limited to determining that these two specific provisions in the Rule—namely, 27 

CFR 478.12(c) (“frame or receiver”), regulating certain partially complete frames and 

receivers (i.e., those are designed to or may readily be designed to or may readily be 

completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to a functional state) as falling 

within the definition of “frame or receiver,” and the portion of 27 CFR 478.11

(“firearm”) that addresses certain weapon parts kits (i.e., those that are designed to or 

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

projectile by the action of an explosive) as falling within the definition of “firearm.”

14. The Rule, which was published with 90 days of public notice and comment, and which 

evaluated over 290,000 public comments, did considerably more than amend the 

regulatory definition of “frame or receiver” to include certain partially complete frames 

or receivers, 27 CFR 478.12(c), and amend the regulatory definition of “firearm” to 

include certain weapon part kits, 27 CFR 478.11.

15. In addition to these amendments, the Rule also: (a) defines the terms “frame” for 

handguns, and “receiver” for long guns and other projectiles weapons, to identify the 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID 4838
-6-

specific part that provides the housing for one primary fire control component with 

respect to those weapons, and grandfathers pre-existing designs; (b) addresses how and 

by when unserialized firearms that are privately made and are voluntarily accepted into 

the inventory of a licensee must be marked and recorded; (c) provides silencer 

manufacturers with important clarifications as to which portion of a complete muffler 

or silencer device must be marked with a serial number and other required 

identification, and when (often tiny) individual silencer parts must be marked; (d) 

explains how “multi-piece” frames or receivers that are modular—those that may be 

disassembled into standardized multiple subparts—are required to be marked; (e) 

updates the marking requirements for manufacturers to allow them to mark their 

abbreviated license number as an alternative to “city” and “state,” by clarifying what it 

means to mark “conspicuously,” and permits adoption of markings when firearms are 

being transferred prior to first sale or distribution into commerce and when 

gunsmithing operations are performed; (f) requires all licensees to consolidate records 

of manufacture, importation, acquisition, and disposition of firearms; and (g) updates 

existing regulations to require that all records retained by firearms licensees be 

maintained until they discontinue business or licensed operations rather than requiring 

them to be maintained for only 20 years.

Overview of Harms

16. Eliminating the entire Rule—including provisions other than those evaluated by the 

Court in its opinions and orders—would irreparably harm the public, the regulated 

community, and ATF. Such elimination would damage public safety by allowing 

felons and other prohibited purchasers (including underage persons) and possessors to 

easily buy and assemble both serialized and unserialized firearms, by permitting the 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID 4839
-7-

widespread proliferation of unserialized firearms, and by impairing law enforcement’s 

ability to trace firearms recovered at crime scenes. In addition, the Rule provides 

clarity to, and eases certain regulatory burdens on, the regulated community, such that 

its elimination would cause confusion among, and costs to, that community. ATF has 

already spent substantial resources to implement the Rule. Thus, eliminating the Rule 

would—especially if any elimination were later narrowed or reversed—require ATF to 

spend additional substantial resources and would create confusion both inside and 

outside the agency.

Harm to Public Safety

17. A number of the Rule’s provisions are aimed at ensuring that all firearms have a single 

frame or receiver subject to the statutory serialization, licensing, background check, 

recordkeeping, and other requirements. The effective implementation of those 

requirements is critically important to public safety, primarily for two separate reasons. 

18. First, these requirements prevent felons and other prohibited persons throughout the 

country from acquiring firearms by ensuring that licensees sell firearms only after the 

purchaser undergoes a background check (or falls within an exception) and completes 

an ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record. 

19. Second, as detailed extensively in the Rule and the administrative record, unserialized 

firearms, which have been increasingly recovered at crime scenes, are nearly impossible 

to trace and therefore pose a significant challenge to law enforcement. (87 FR 24655 –

24660; AR 818-819; 825-827; 855-859; 871-901;71,465-71,657). The number of 

suspected unserialized firearms recovered by law enforcement agencies and submitted 

to ATF for tracing increased by 1,083% from 2017 (1,629) to 2021 (19,273). (National 

Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment Vol. II: Part III, Page 5). With the 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID 4840
-8-

Rule in its infancy, the threat of unserialized firearms continues. Between August 24, 

2022, and July 6, 2023, a total of approximately 23,452 suspected privately made 

firearms were recovered at crime scenes and submitted for tracing. (ATF PMF Trace 

Data, queried July 14, 2023). These numbers are likely far lower than the actual 

number of privately made firearms recovered from crime scenes because some law 

enforcement departments incorrectly trace some privately made firearms as 

commercially manufactured firearms, or may not see a need to use their resources to 

attempt to trace firearms with no serial numbers or other markings. (87 FR 24656 

n.18).

20. Eliminating all of the Rule’s provisions would thus irreparably harm public safety by 

allowing the continued proliferation of unserialized firearms—generally acquired by 

individuals who have not undergone a background check and sold with no record of 

their sale—on a number of different dimensions. 

21. At the outset, the two provisions that the Court determined exceeded ATF’s regulatory 

authority in its opinion vacating the Rule are critical to public safety because they 

prevent easy circumvention of the GCA’s entire regulatory scheme. 27 CFR 478.12(c)

(“frame or receiver”), which explains when a partially complete, disassembled, or 

nonfunctional frame or receiver has reached the stage of manufacture to be considered 

a “frame” or “receiver,” ensures that companies that produce and sell frame or 

receiver parts kits, or standalone partially complete frames or receivers, that allow 

ready completion and assembly to be functional frames or receivers: (a) are properly 

licensed; (b) place traceable marks of identification on them; (c) conduct background 

checks when they are sold to prevent felons and other prohibited persons from 

acquiring them; and (d) maintain records through which the weapons that incorporate 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID 4841
-9-

them can traced if later used in crime. Under the Court’s decision, unlike every other 

firearms manufacturer, a manufacturer of frames or receivers can easily avoid the 

regulatory requirements of the GCA simply by producing and selling frames or 

receivers that are missing, for example, a single hole necessary to install the applicable 

fire control component, or that has a small piece of plastic that can easily be removed 

to allow installation of that component (i.e., a frame or receiver that is “partially 

complete”).

22. The same is true of weapon parts kits. 27 CFR 478.11 (“firearm”) ensures that 

companies that produce and sell weapon parts kits, or aggregations of parts that allow

a weapon to readily be completed and assembled to expel a lethal projectile, are subject 

to the same requirements as all other firearms manufacturers. Again, these 

requirements help prevent violent crime by requiring manufacturers to conduct 

background checks to prevent prohibited persons from receiving them, and requiring 

licensees to mark and keep records that allow those weapons to be traced to a potential 

suspect if they are later used in a crime.

23. In recognition of these risks to public safety, the Court had previously limited its 

preliminary injunctions so that it did not apply to plaintiffs’ customers who were 

prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). In vacating the 

Rule, that important limitation to the Court’s prior rulings no longer exists, which will 

only encourage felons and other prohibited purchasers (including underage persons) 

and possessors to buy firearms in the configuration of weapon parts kits or partially 

complete frames or receivers that enable those individuals to easily acquire the parts 

and readily complete and assemble a functional unserialized firearm for use in violent 

crime. (87 FR 24686 & n.107).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID 4842
-10- 

24. For example, in New Orleans, Louisiana, from August 19, 2021, to February 1, 2022, a 

20-year-old named Tyrese Harris committed a series of carjackings using a privately 

made 9mm caliber semiautomatic pistol that had been completed and assembled from 

a Lone Wolf parts kit that could not be traced. During one attempted carjacking, 

Harris fired the weapon at the driver, and in another, the victim was dragged by the car 

resulting in serious bodily injury. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison. See also, 

Teens buying ghost guns online, with deadly consequences, Washington Post (July 12, 2023), 

available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/07/12/teens-ghostguns-deadly-shootings/. 

25. In addition, numerous other provisions of the Rule, which were not addressed by the 

Court, seek to combat the proliferation of unserialized, or otherwise untraceable, 

firearms in different ways. Eliminating those provisions would thus further undermine 

public safety.

26. First, one provision of the Rule updates the regulatory definitions of “frame” and 

“receiver” to reflect advances in weapons technology. As noted in the Rule (87 FR 

24691, 24655) and administrative record (AR 628-687; 701-709; 719-722; 71,330), the 

1968 regulatory definition of “frame or receiver” meant “[t]hat part of a firearm which 

provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism.” But 

today, 90% of firearms currently available do not have a single part that houses a 

hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism; instead, most firearms have split

frames or receivers (i.e., they house those three components in two or more separate 

parts), or they house a striker rather than a hammer. As a result, under a strict reading 

of the previous regulatory definition—which had been adopted by at least three federal 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID 4843
-11- 

district courts (87 FR 24691, 24655)2—the vast majority of available firearms would 

have no frame or receiver. 

27. The practical result of that strict reading is that every individual part of almost all

firearms in circulation in the United States may be sold separately without compliance 

with the statutory background check, licensing, serialization, and recordkeeping 

requirements. As illustrated below, a felon or other prohibited person could easily 

purchase online Part A and Part B (i.e., the upper and lower receiver) as “nonfirearms” and assemble a fully functional AR-variant firearm within a minute. And that 

firearm may not have a serial number, and even if it did, there would be no 

recordkeeping required that would allow ATF to trace it if it were later recovered at a 

crime scene.

Part A 

 Part B

Complete Weapon

2 See United States v. Jimenez, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (N.D. Cal 2016); United States v. Roh, 8:14-cr00167-JVS, May 16, 2019; United States v. Rowold, 429 F. Supp. 3d 469 (N.D. Ohio 2019). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID 4844
-12-

28. Notably, a court in the Northern District of Ohio encouraged ATF to alter the 1968 

regulatory definition of “frame or receiver,” stating that “[A]TF retains the authority –

and has the duty – to fix the regulatory scheme and to regulate AR-15 lower receivers 

as firearms within the GCA. The result I reach only prevents the agency from using an 

unreasonable and legally unacceptable application of its current regulation to 

accomplish that worthwhile objective.” Rowold, 429 F. Supp. 3d at 476.

29. Second, the Rule requires that firearms licensees mark unserialized firearms whenever

they are voluntarily accepted into the licensee’s inventory. The GCA requires that 

licensees record the acquisition and disposition of each firearm, but without unique 

identifying information to record, those records are ineffective as a means of tracing or 

locating unserialized firearms. Thus, eliminating that provision of the Rule would 

undermine the GCA’s requirements that ensure every licensee has recorded each 

firearm’s acquisition and disposition for purposes of tracing. 

30. As explained above, the lack of proper records makes it nearly impossible to trace 

firearms that are recovered at crime scenes. But it also harms public safety in other, 

related ways. For example, it is difficult, if not impossible, for licensees and ATF 

(during inspections) to match accurately and reliably the unserialized firearms in a 

licensee’s inventory with those in required records, or to determine whether a 

particular unserialized firearm recorded as disposed on a Form 4473 (which details 

information of a purchaser) are those recorded as disposed in the records. Such 

difficulty not only makes it hard for ATF to ensure that licensees are keeping accurate 

records during inspections, but also means that licensees and ATF will have difficulty 

accurately determining which unserialized firearms were stolen or lost from inventory

if such an incident occurs, or were the same crime guns listed on an ATF Form 4473. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID 4845
-13-

In addition, the lack of such a serialization requirement makes it much more difficult 

for police to locate stolen unserialized firearms in the business inventories of 

pawnbrokers, for example, or to return any recovered stolen or lost unserialized 

firearms to their rightful owners. (87 FR 24659-60)

31. Third, the Rule imposes a number of requirements related to silencers and mufflers 

that are important for public safety. The Rule explains how, by when, and where on 

the device, including one that is modular, the silencer or muffler must be marked so 

that law enforcement officers can trace them if later found at a crime scene. The Rule 

also prohibits manufacturers from marking a removable end cap on the device, which 

can be damaged during use, thus destroying the information necessary to trace the 

firearm. (87 FR 24660, 24727, 24739)

32. Fourth, the Rule updates existing regulations to require that all records retained by 

firearms licensees be maintained (including allowing storage of old paper records at a 

separate warehouse) until they discontinue business or licensed operations, rather than 

destroying them after a twenty-year period. As the Rule and administrative record 

make clear, numerous older firearms could not be traced after having been used in 

crime because the records were destroyed after 20 years. (87 FR 24667, 24712; AR 

68,595-597; 68,605-606; 68,626-628; 68,640-644; 68,655; 68,659-661). There are 

currently 81,808 total active federal firearms licensees. Of those, 14,048 have been in 

business 20 years or more, and an additional 751 have been in business for 19 years. 

With the Rule vacated, these thousands of licensees are able to destroy their dated 

records now and every day the Rule remains vacated without recourse. Once these 

firearms transactions records are destroyed, there is no way to recover the information 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID 4846
-14-

they contained, which will make any additional traces of the firearms involved 

unsuccessful. 

33. As explained in the Rule, the National Tracing Center conducted an analysis of all trace 

requests submitted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that were closed 

under a particular code in the tracing system indicating the licensee specifically 

informed ATF that it did not have records for that firearm because the records were 

more than 20 years old and had been destroyed. A total of approximately 16,324 

traces, or 1,360 on average per year, could not be completed during this time period 

because ATF was informed the records had been destroyed. Of these total 

unsuccessful traces, approximately 182 of the traces were designated as “Urgent,”

1,013 were related to a homicide or attempted homicide (not including suicide), and 

4,237 were related to “Violent Crime.” (87 FR 24712)

Harm to the Regulated Community

34. In addition to harming public safety, eliminating the entire Rule would substantially 

injure the regulated community, in primarily two different ways. First, it would create 

substantial confusion among the regulated community regarding their legal obligations. 

Second, it would increase regulatory burdens on the regulated community. 

35. First, eliminating the Rule will create, and indeed has already created, significant 

confusion among the regulated community—impacting approximately 80,000 

licensees. Vacating the entire Rule also has a significant impact on formal ATF 

Rulings that were superseded by the Rule because the firearms industry is unclear how 

to proceed with their current business practices. ATF has already received inquiries 

from members of the firearms industry, a trade association that represents many of 

those members, and a software company, seeking clarification whether they must now 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID 4847
-15-

reverse their newly implemented business practices (e.g., whether these licensees must 

now separate their recently consolidated records) and methods of operation. This 

confusion will only increase if the Court’s ruling, or the scope of relief, is reversed on 

appeal, which may require licensees to overhaul certain business practices twice in a 

short period of time. 

36. Second, a number of provisions of the Rule were aimed at easing burdens on the 

regulated community, and their elimination harms that community by reimposing 

those requirements. For example, the Rule authorizes manufacturers to mark the 

“frame” or “receiver” with their abbreviated license number instead of “city” and 

“state” of manufacture, and enumerates specific exceptions as to when and how a 

licensee may adopt existing markings. Without the Rule, these codified allowances and 

blanket “marking variances” would not exist, increasing burdens on the firearms 

industry. These burdens may be particularly onerous because manufacturers must set 

up their manufacturing processes to comply with marking requirements, a process that 

costs substantial time and money to accomplish.

37. In addition, the Rule provides silencer manufacturers with important clarification as to 

which portion of a complete muffler or silencer device must be marked with a serial 

number and other required identification. Under the GCA, the term “silencer” is 

defined to include each small individual part designed and intended only to be used to 

fabricate a silencer. It is extremely difficult and expensive for silencer manufacturers 

to mark each tiny individual silencer part. For this reason, the Rule only requires them 

to mark what is defined as the “frame or receiver” of the silencer. (AR 917; 937-938). 

38. Similarly, the Rule also provides an exception for qualified manufacturers to delay or 

avoid registration of silencer parts if they become part of a complete device, or

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID 4848
-16-

gunsmithing operations are being performed on an existing marked and registered 

silencer device. Without the Rule, there is no exception for manufacturers from the 

requirement that they mark and register each and every silencer part, and no grace 

period in which to mark them after completion of manufacture. 

39. The Rule replaced many prior ATF Rulings with updated information that explained 

how to conduct business under law. (87 FR 24664 n.53, 24665-66, 24688, 24702-03, 

24729-30). For example, the Rule superseded ATF Rulings 2009-5 (Firearms 

Manufacturing Activities, Identification Markings of Firearms) and 2013-3 (Adopting 

Identification of Firearms). Under the applicable provisions of the Rule, 

manufacturers may adopt existing markings on a firearm and a “non-marking variance 

request” or notice is no longer required under the new regulations under certain 

circumstances. Without the Rule, manufacturers will either have to mark firearms they 

remanufacture, or apply for a variance not to mark firearms they remanufacture even 

though they have already been marked by another manufacturer. These additional 

markings are expensive for licensees to place, and confusing to law enforcement when 

conducting a trace of a crime gun.

40. In addition, the Rule superseded ATF Ruling 2011–1 (Importers Consolidated 

Records) and ATF Ruling 2016–3 (Consolidation of Records Required for 

Manufacturers), which allowed licensed manufacturers and importers to consolidate 

their records of both production/importation, and disposition, but only under certain 

conditions. The Rule made this consolidation a requirement. If the Rule is removed, 

manufacturers and importers would need to undo this consolidation and keep their 

production/importation records separately from their records of sale or distribution 

unless they obtain a variance.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID 4849
-17-

Harm to ATF

41. In addition, elimination of the Rule will substantially harm ATF, which has devoted 

significant resources to training and implementing the Rule, and which will need to 

devote substantial additional resources to comply. 

42. For example, after the issuance of the Rule, ATF amended its Form 4473, Firearms 

Transaction Record, to comport with the updates made by the Rule. This form must 

be completed every time a licensee transfers a firearm to a non-licensee. ATF will 

incur substantial monetary costs to publish a revised version of Form 4473. This 

would include the cost of creating, printing, and shipping approximately 25 million 

replacement forms to licensees throughout the United States. This cost could double 

if the Court’s decision is overturned or rendered inconsistent with rulings by other 

courts. In addition to ATF’s costs to change the Form 4473, there are also costs to the 

industry to develop the electronic Form 4473 for their electronic systems; in addition 

to the costs, these changes can take roughly several months to complete.

43. After publication of the Rule, ATF and the Department of Justice conducted extensive 

training and outreach to federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, and United 

States Attorney’s Offices nationwide regarding the impact of the Rule. ATF 

extensively trained its personnel on the scope of the Rule and identified one Industry 

Operations Investigator and one Special Agent in each ATF field division as the local 

subject matter expert on the Rule. ATF conducted approximately 18 internal trainings 

which around 1,978 ATF employees attended. Additionally, ATF presented at least 

four virtual trainings for over 5,200 regulated industry members and in person 

trainings to regulated industry members at the Orchid Advisors Conference, SAAMI 

Conference, National Shooting Sports Foundation conference, and Firearms and 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID 4850
-18-

Ammunition Import Roundtable Conference. ATF’s Office of Field Operations also 

conducted over 150 licensee seminars from June 22, 2022, to the present which 

included explaining the Rule.

44. Each training covered the Rule’s definition of “frame or receiver”; its definition of 

“privately made firearm”; marking and recordkeeping for licensees; general changes to 

the marking, recordkeeping, and record retention requirements for licensees; and 

affected ATF Rulings/Procedures. In each training, experts from ATF’s Firearms and 

Ammunition Technology Division, Firearms and Explosives Services Division, 

National Firearms Act Division, Field Operations, and Firearms and Explosives Law 

Division answered numerous questions.

45. In addition to training, ATF established a robust public facing webpage, 

(https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver) dedicated to 

the Rule. The website includes a summary of the Rule, resource guides explaining the 

impact of the Rule, and it provides access to the regulation’s website with the Rule’s

text, the detailed PowerPoint training, frequently asked questions, and a recorded 

training video on the Rule. 

46. Removal of the Rule will result in widespread confusion among law enforcement 

officers and prosecutors, firearms industry members, and the general public. ATF has 

already begun to receive these inquiries, and will need to devote the agency’s limited 

time and resources to retraining internal personnel and educating the regulated 

industry, law enforcement, and the public on implementation of this decision. The 

potential of an appeal or contrary decision by the court of appeals or another district 

court further increases the risk that ATF will need to expend further resources to 

undertake continual efforts to update the public on the status of the Rule.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID 4851
-19-

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 14th day of July, 2023.

_________________________

Matthew P. Varisco

Assistant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services (Regulatory Operations)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

United States Department of Justice

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 236-1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID 4852