EXHIBIT 

B

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 1 of 32 PageID 2799
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, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Intervenors

and

Not An LLC d/b/a JSD SUPPLY,

Applicant in Intervention,

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

NOT AN LLC d/b/a JSD SUPPLY’S [PROPOSED] COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 2 of 32 PageID 2800
1

INTRODUCTION

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

rewrite federal law, create new criminal and civil liability where there was none, and destroy the 

ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by privately making firearms. 

2. Intervenor-Plaintiff Not an LLC, d/b/a JSD Supply (hereafter, “JSD Supply” or 

“JSD”) is a business that, historically, produced and distributed receiver blanks—unfinished 

firearm parts from which individuals can make their own firearms—along with 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—along with 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 and do 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, let alone 

if such are sold as separate items.

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. 

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 3 of 32 PageID 2801
2

principles of congressional intent; and (c) attempted to illicitly and unconstitutionally redefine, 

inter alia, the scope of the Gun Control Act. 

8. First, contrary to the actual terms of the GCA, 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, including the GCA. 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. 

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 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 4 of 32 PageID 2802
3

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 unlawful and unconstitutional regulation that detrimentally 

impacts JSD Supply and similarly situated businesses and may ultimately put JSD Supply out of 

business. JSD Supply 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. Not an LLC, d/b/a JSD Supply (hereafter “JSD Supply”) is a limited liability 

company organized under Pennsylvania law with its principal place of business in Butler County, 

Pennsylvania. JSD Supply engages in systematic and ongoing business in Texas and in this 

District. Historically, JSD Supply’s core business consisted of manufacturing and wholesale 

distributing the very items Defendants seek to regulate under the Final Rule. Historically, JSD 

Supply distributed 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.

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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 5 of 32 PageID 2803
4

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; and JSD Supply 

has engaged in business transactions and other commerce in this district. 

20. JSD Supply 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.

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 6 of 32 PageID 2804
5

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 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 when they are applicable 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 7 of 32 PageID 2805
6

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 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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 8 of 32 PageID 2806
7

35. Customers for receiver blanks include women and men, veterans, blue- and whitecollar 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 law-abiding Americans from 

privately making firearms. See infra (the Biden Administration’s statements). 

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 9 of 32 PageID 2807
8

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

according to the GCA.2

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

2 ATF, Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal?, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-“80”-

or-“unfinished”-receivers-illegal.

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-own-firearms.

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-personal-use.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 10 of 32 PageID 2808
9

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

determined are not regulated firearm receivers:6

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

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 11 of 32 PageID 2809
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 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 12 of 32 PageID 2810
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 receiver-blank 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).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 13 of 32 PageID 2811
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 . . . .

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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 14 of 32 PageID 2812
13

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.’ ”

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. 

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

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 15 of 32 PageID 2813
14

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 so-called “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

52. Defendant Garland stated in his remarks that “the proliferation of the so-called 

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.

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/.

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/attorneygeneral-garland-s-full-remarks-gun-violence-prevention-white-house-rose-garden.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 16 of 32 PageID 2814
15

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

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.”

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-briefing-bypress-secretary-jen-psaki-april-11-2022/.

12 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-08026

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 17 of 32 PageID 2815
16

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, 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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 18 of 32 PageID 2816
17

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 guncontrol 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. 

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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 19 of 32 PageID 2817
18

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, JSD Supply and other similarly 

situated companies have had to, inter alia, change their company websites in order to avoid 

potential criminal charges and to survive as businesses. 

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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 20 of 32 PageID 2818
19

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 inconsistent determinations concerning 

the same metal piece (“frame or receiver”) depending on whether it is associated with instructions 

infringes upon JSD Supply’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.”

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 21 of 32 PageID 2819
20

• 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.”

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):

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 22 of 32 PageID 2820
21

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 or intend. 

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 illegally and 

unconstitutionally 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 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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 23 of 32 PageID 2821
22

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 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 JSD Supply 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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 24 of 32 PageID 2822
23

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 JSD Supply’s Business

96. JSD Supply’s historical business involved the wholesale 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, as well as the retail sale of those same products. 

97. Historically, JSD Supply 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 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 has the potential to wipe out JSD Supply’s business 

as historically conducted and/or cause JSD Supply and its owners and employees to face criminal 

and civil liability if it conducts its historical business. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 25 of 32 PageID 2823
24

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 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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 26 of 32 PageID 2824
25

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). 

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.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 27 of 32 PageID 2825
26

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

unlawfully expanding its jurisdiction.

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

avoided the severe negative impact on businesses such as JSD Supply.

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 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 28 of 32 PageID 2826
27

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 JSD Supply 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 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).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 29 of 32 PageID 2827
28

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 JSD Supply to 

regulate its speech by changing 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. 

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 JSD Supply in direct violation 

of the First Amendment. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 30 of 32 PageID 2828
29

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 investment-backed 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 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 directly or indirectly;

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 31 of 32 PageID 2829
30

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/ Matthew J. Smid

MATTHEW J. SMID

TX Bar No. 24063541

ATTORNEY AT LAW

301 Commerce Street, Suite 2001

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Phone: (817) 332-3822 Phone

Fax: (817) 332-2763 Fax

matt@mattsmidlaw.com

J. MARK BREWER

Texas Bar No. 02965010

BREWER & PRITCHARD, P.C. 

800 Bering Dr., Suite 201

Houston, TX 77057 

Phone: (713) 209-2910

brewer@bplaw.com 

Attorneys for proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff Not an 

LLC, dba JSD Supply

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 149-2 Filed 01/05/23 Page 32 of 32 PageID 2830