Source: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-v-whitaker
Timestamp: 2019-11-14 16:28:29
Document Index: 263624358

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3345', '§ 508', '§ 508', '§ 3345', '§ 508', '§ 3345', '§ 508', '§ 3345', '§ 3345']

FPC v. Acting A.G. Matthew Whitaker - Firearms Policy Coalition
WhitakerCase.com - FPC v. Acting A.G. Matthew Whitaker, et al.
Summary: FPC v. Whitaker is a federal constitutional and statutory challenge to the DOJ/ATF ban on "bump-stock" devices brought President Trump's ban on "bump stock" devices by executive fiat
Defendants: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker; Attorney General William P. Barr; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; ATF Acting Director Thomas E. Brandon, and United States of America
See BumpstockCase.com for the latest information about the Guedes, et al. v. BATFE bumpstock-ban challenge at the Supreme Court
Litigation Counsel: Thomas C. Goldstein; Daniel Woofter - Goldstein & Russell, P.C.
In the Second Amended Complaint, FPC requested that the Court enter an order that:
(a) ENJOINS the government’s policy of using the FVRA to designate an employee to act as an officer, to designate a non-Senate confirmed official or employee to act as a principal officer during an absence or vacancy when that officer’s first assistant is available to serve, and to displace the acting principal officer designated by an office-specific designation statute;
(b) DECLARES that the government’s policy of using the FVRA to designate an employee to act as an officer, to designate a non-Senate confirmed official or employee to act as a principal officer during an absence or vacancy when that officer’s first assistant is available to serve, and to displace the acting principal officer designated by an office-specific designation statute, violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and applicable statutes, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 508;
(c) DECLARES that the Final Rule unconstitutionally and unlawfully caused plaintiff and its members harm from its inception, because it deprived plaintiff and its members of their property right to alienate their bump stocks from the day the Final Rule was signed, and Mr. Whitaker was not constitutionally or statutorily authorized to issue the Final Rule on December 18, 2018;
(d) DECLARES that issuance of the Final Rule by Mr. Whitaker on December 18, 2018, wholly apart from Mr. Barr’s ratification on March 14, 2019, was illegal, because plaintiff and its members were injured from the Final Rule’s inception, and Mr. Whitaker was not constitutionally or statutorily authorized to issue the Final Rule on December 18, 2018;
(e) DECLARES that Mr. Barr’s ratification does not cure the harm that plaintiff and its members already suffered during the period between Mr. Whitaker’s unconstitutional and unlawful issuance of the Final Rule on December 18, 2018, and Mr. Barr’s ratification on March 14, 2019;
(f) DECLARES that Matthew G. Whitaker’s designation as the Acting Attorney General violated the Appointments Clause;
(g) DECLARES that Matthew G. Whitaker’s designation as the Acting Attorney General violated 28 U.S.C. § 508, because 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq. does not apply when an office-specific statute like 28 U.S.C. § 508 designates an official to serve during an absence or vacancy;
(h) DECLARES that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq., does not apply when there is an office-specific designation statute, such as 28 U.S.C. § 508, and the designated official is available to serve;
(i) DECLARES that 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3) is unconstitutional insofar as it permits the President to designate an employee, such as the Chief of Staff, to act as an officer in violation of the Appointments Clause; and
(j) DECLARES that 5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3) is unconstitutional insofar as it permits the President to bypass an available “first assistant” by designating an employee or a non-Senate confirmed officer who is not the first assistant to act as a principal officer, in violation of the Appointments Clause.
Click here to make a donation to support this case!
2019-11-1: Notice of Appeal
2019-10-31: Memorandum Order (Granting Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint)
2019-6-10: Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
2019-5-23: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
2019-5-9: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
2019-5-9: Second Amended Complaint
2018-12-26: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
December 26, 2018: FPC Counsel Goldstein & Russell, P.C. Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Acting A.G. Whitaker, ATF Bump-Stock Ban