UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK; MICHAEL 

G. ANDREN; TACTICAL MACHINING 

LLC, a limited liability company; 

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, 

INC., a nonprofit corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

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; 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, 

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

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

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the Scope of the Court’s 

Preliminary Injunction with Respect to Tactical Machining’s Pending Classification Request 

(Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 71), filed September 15, 2022; Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion 

for Clarification (Pls.’ Resp., ECF No. 75), filed September 22, 2022; and Defendants’ Reply in 

Support of their Motion for Clarification (Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 78), filed September 24, 2022. 

Defendants seek clarification about whether the Preliminary Injunction1 prohibits ATF from 

completing the Plaintiff’s pending product classification request with the understanding that, result 

1 Defendants are presently enjoined from “implementing and enforcing against Tactical Machining, LLC 

the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12 that this Order has determined are unlawful” (Opinion 

& Order on Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 56 at 23). 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 84 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1133
2

aside, ATF will not take any adverse action against Tactical (Defs.’ Mot. at 2).2 Indeed, Defendants 

assert that “classification of the Product as either a ‘firearm’ or not a ‘firearm’ cannot constitute 

action by the government ‘against’ Tactical Machining in violation of the Preliminary Injunction” 

(Defs.’ Reply at 2) (emphasis added).

3 If it “determines that the product is not a firearm,” ATF 

claims “the Parties’ dispute will be narrowed or eliminated,” along with the alleged harm that 

Tactical Machining faces as a result of the Rule (Defs.’ Mot. at 2). Defendants suggest that 

Plaintiffs might support completion of the product classification, since they have yet to revoke 

their still-pending request. See id. Defendants indicate ATF can conclude the classification “within 

two business days” of receiving the Court’s clarification should it be permitted to do so under the 

injunction and ask the Court to delay its ruling on the scope of the injunction until after the 

classification determination is made (Defs.’ Supp. Br., ECF No. 73). 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion and argue that permitting ATF to apply its likely unlawfully 

regulations to Tactical’s product in completing the classification request violates the injunction 

and would “be the death knell of [Tactical’s] business” should the result be an unfavorable one 

(Pls.’ Resp. 1–3). They claim additional injury would result because Tactical’s already risk-averse

customers and vendors would have a definitive basis for refusing to purchase the now clearlyclassified product from them. See id.4 Moreover, Plaintiffs argue not one of their claims—excess 

of statutory authority (Count I); APA procedural violations (Count II); arbitrary and capricious 

conduct (Count III); nor constitutional challenges (Counts IV–VI)—“would be mooted or 

appreciably ‘narrowed’” should ATF provide even a favorable classification result. Id. at 4.

2 On April 12, 2022, Tactical Machining, LLC submitted to ATF a product reclassification request for 

guidance about whether its partially machined AR-15 pattern receiver was considered a “firearm” under 

the Rule (ECF No. 16-1, Exs. 1–2). 

3 Id. at 3 n.3 (“[T]he Court did not enjoin ATF from providing classification decisions”). 

4 The “assurance [provided by a single product classification] is too narrow and leaves too many 

questions unanswered to meaningfully mitigate Plaintiffs’ harm.” Id. at 5.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 84 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1134
3

Allowing ATF to apply its Rule while completing the classification of Tactical’s primary 

product offering constitutes “implement[ation]” of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and 478.12(c), which this 

Court has said are likely unlawful. And, despite Defendants’ arguments to the contrary, issuing

such an agency determination that—but for the injunction—would place Tactical at risk of an 

enforcement action, qualifies as agency action taken “against” Tactical in contravention of the 

current injunction. This aside, the Court considered permitting ATF to complete its classification 

request should the parties agree that it would afford some relief or narrow the dispute, as 

Defendants originally intimated (Defs.’ Mot. at 2). Because the parties contest the utility of a 

completed classification request, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion and CLARIFIES that 

the current injunction precludes Defendants from concluding its classification determination with 

respect to Tactical’s product.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 84 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1135