Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
19-296
NOEL J. FRANCISCO
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney
General
MARK B. STERN
MICHAEL S. RAAB
ABBY C. WRIGHT
BRAD HINSHELWOOD
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
(202) 514-2217
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the court of appeals correctly denied a pre-
liminary injunction where petitioners failed to demon-
strate a likelihood of success on their contention that
devices known as bump stocks, which permit users to
fire a semiautomatic rifle repeatedly with a single pull
of the trigger, do not qualify as “machinegun[s]” under
the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
(I)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opinions below .............................................................................. 1
Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1
Statement ...................................................................................... 1
Argument..................................................................................... 13
A. The lower courts correctly determined that
petitioners are not likely to succeed in challenging
the rule ............................................................................ 14
B. This case would be an unsuitable vehicle for
addressing petitioners’ Chevron questions ................. 19
1. This case does not properly present questions
about Chevron deference and the rule of lenity .... 20
2. In any event, petitioners’ Chevron questions do
not warrant review .................................................. 29
Conclusion ................................................................................... 31
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
(III)
IV
Cases—Continued: Page
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117
(2016) .................................................................................... 20
Gun Owners of Am. v. Barr, 363 F. Supp. 3d 823
(W.D. Mich. 2019), appeal pending, No. 19-1298
(6th Cir. oral argument scheduled for
Dec. 11, 2019) ................................................................... 19
Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) ............................. 29, 30
Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke,
551 U.S. 158 (2007).............................................................. 25
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) .............. 28
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199
(2015) .............................................................................. 20, 22
Shalala v. Guernsey Mem’l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87 (1995) ...... 21
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) ............... 16, 28
United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (2014) .......................... 30
United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911) ................. 26
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) ............. 20
United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997) .................. 26
United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 558 U.S. 948 (2009) ................................. 10, 18
United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.,
504 U.S. 505 (1992).............................................................. 29
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) ........................ 28
Miscellaneous: Page
ATF, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, National Firearms
Act Handbook (Apr. 2009) ............................................. 3, 15
ATF Ruling 2006-2 (Dec. 13, 2006),
https://go.usa.gov/xpbEX............................................... 5, 16
82 Fed. Reg. 60,929 (Dec. 26, 2017) ....................................... 6
83 Fed. Reg. 7949 (Feb. 20, 2018) .......................................... 7
83 Fed. Reg. 13,442 (Mar. 29, 2018) ....................................... 7
83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) ............................ passim
H.R. Rep. No. 1780, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) ................. 16
H.R. Rep. No. 495, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) .................... 2
National Firearms Act: Hearings on H.R. 9066
Before the H. Comm. on Ways & Means,
73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) ............................................ 16, 17
S. Rep. No. 1444, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) ...................... 16
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 19-296
DAMIEN GUEDES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND
EXPLOSIVES, ET AL.
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. A1-A97)
is reported at 920 F.3d 1. The opinion of the district court
(Pet. App. C1-C81) is reported at 356 F. Supp. 3d 109.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on
April 1, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the Chief Justice ex-
tended the time within which to file a petition for a writ
of certiorari to and including August 29, 2019, and the
petition was filed on that date. The jurisdiction of this
Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
STATEMENT
1. Since the 1934 enactment of the National Fire-
arms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq., federal law has im-
posed various requirements on persons possessing or
(1)
2
1
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30), 922(v) (2000). Those provisions had been
enacted in 1994 with a 10-year sunset provision. See Public Safety
and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322,
Tit. XI, Subtit. A, §§ 110102, 110105, 108 Stat. 1996-1998, 2000.
4
2
https://go.usa.gov/xpbEX.
6