JSD Supply Files Temporary Restraining Order Against ATF May 2022

Case 2:05-mc-02025 Document 537 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 45
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOT AN LLC d/b/a/ JSD SUPPLY, Case No.___________
Plaintiff,
v.
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and
GARY M. RESTAINO AS THE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF ATF,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Now comes Plaintiff, through counsel, and for its Complaint states as follows:
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the authority of
Defendant Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) to have issued a May
9, 2022 Cease-and-Desist Order (“C&D Order”) to Plaintiff, Not an LLC d/b/a JSD Supply (“JSD
Supply”), ordering Plaintiff to halt sales of certain unspecified products (or unspecified
combinations of products) from its inventory, even though all such items are entirely unregulated
by federal law and completely outside ATF’s authority to control.
2. Defendants’ vague C&D Order, without any statutory authority, has forced Plaintiff
to immediately suspend all retail sales of its entire product line, causing immediate and substantial
financial losses, violating the Fifth Amendment, and infringing on the Second Amendment rights
of Plaintiff and its customers. Accordingly, Plaintiff is also seeking emergency relief, in the form
of a temporary restraining order pursuant to FRCP Rule 65(b), enjoining Defendants from in any
way enforcing the provisions of its C&D Order against Plaintiff.
Page 1 of 43
3. Plaintiff respectfully seeks a hearing on its request for a temporary restraining
order and/or preliminary injunction as soon as possible. Time is of the essence.
4. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, counsel for Plaintiff has caused a true
and correct copy of its filing to be delivered to counsel for Defendants, via e-mail, fax, and has
provided notice of the filings by phone.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Not an LLC d/b/a JSD Supply, is a Pennsylvania limited liability
corporation, having its principal place of business at 1052 New Castle Road, Prospect, PA 16052,
within Butler County, Pennsylvania, and within this district. Plaintiff is primarily a retailer of
firearm-related products, both in this jurisdiction and across the United States (where lawful). On
the same day that Plaintiff received the C&D Order, it ceased all retail sales of firearm parts and
related products.
6. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an executive agency within the
federal government of the United States. DOJ is headquartered at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, D.C. 20530. DOJ is the agency responsible for enforcing federal firearms laws.
7. Defendant Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) is a
component within DOJ, and is headquartered at 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, D.C.
20226. ATF investigates violations of and enforces compliance with federal firearms laws.
8. Defendant Gary M. Restaino is the Acting Director of ATF pursuant to a
presidential designation which occurred April 25, 2022, and thus is responsible for overseeing the
Page 2 of 43
ATF’s action challenged herein.1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. This Court has authority to grant the remedy Plaintiff seeks under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706.
10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)
and 1391(b)(2). The events giving rise to this claim occurred in Butler County, Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
11. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) is a comprehensive gun control scheme
designed to provide “support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight
against crime and violence,” however “it is not the purpose of this [Act] to place any undue or
unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition,
possession, or use of firearms…” See 90 P.L. 618, 82 Stat. 1213, 1214, § 101.
12. Likewise, Congress stated that the GCA was “… 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 reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provision of…” the Act. Id.
13. The GCA established the definition of “firearm” for purposes of federal firearm
law and regulations, to mean: “(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 silencer; or (D) any destructive device.”
1
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/presidential-designation-atf-acting-
director#:~:text=Biden%20signed%20an%20order%20designating,Firearms%20and%20Explosi
ves%20(ATF).
Page 3 of 43
See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
14. The GCA also states that “No person shall engage in business as a firearms or
ammunition importer, manufacturer, or dealer until he has filed an application with, and received
a licensed to do so from, the Secretary.” 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).
15. The GCA also affixed penalties, including fines and prison time, for various
violations of the Act, including the catch-all provision, “[w]however violates any provision of this
chapter… shall be fined not more than $5,000 [since updated], or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both…” 18 U.S.C. § 924(a).
16. The term “80% receiver” is a colloquial term used within the firearms industry to
denote a product that is an incomplete and unfinished firearm frame or receiver. An 80% receiver
is not a “firearm” under the GCA because it has not yet reached a stage of manufacture to be
classified as such by ATF. ATF has often called 80% receivers “blanks” or “castings.”
17. It has been Defendant ATF’s longstanding position that: “[r]eceiver blanks that do
not meet the definition of a ‘firearm’ are not subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act
(GCA).”2
18. 80% frames and receivers have become increasingly popular within the firearms
community by those who wish to lawfully manufacture their own privately made firearm,3 but
without having to do so from scratch. Rather, an 80% receiver can be purchased and, with
additional tools and labor and skill, can be manufactured by the end user into a complete and
finished firearm frame or receiver. Then, with the addition of the remaining firearm parts, this
2
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-%E2%80%9C80%E2%80%9D-or-
%E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegal.
3
As ATF’s website explains, “a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use.”
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use.
Page 4 of 43
frame or receiver can be assembled into a functional firearm.
19. Plaintiff is, primarily, a retailer of firearm-related parts, tools, and accessories,
including (i) so-called “80% frames or receivers,” and (ii) various firearm parts, tools, and
accessories.
20. None of the products sold by Plaintiff is in any way regulated by the GCA.
21. Indeed, ATF has specifically and repeatedly explained that firearm parts (such as
barrels, triggers, springs, etc.) are not firearms under federal statutory law including the GCA, and
thus are entirely unregulated by the ATF and unable to be regulated by ATF absent an additional
grant of statutory authority.
22. Importantly, ATF also has specifically and repeatedly determined that the “80%
frames and receivers” which Plaintiff sells are not firearms under the GCA, and thus are entirely
unregulated by the ATF.
23. In other words, ATF has explicitly recognized, and expressly sanctioned, the
unregulated sale of every single product that JSD Supply offers for sale.
24. Additionally, in the past ATF has expressly approved the sale of combinations of
these items, in whatever form or permutation – a conclusion that is hardly surprising, as each the
components individually are unregulated by federal law. In other words, ATF’s own guidance
confirms that the agency is without any statutory authority to regulate any of the products sold by
Plaintiff.
25. However, beginning in December of 2018, without any change to the underlying
regulation, let alone any change to the statute by Congress and, without issuing any public-facing
guidance on the topic, ATF began to implement a series of secret and unannounced policy changes
regarding the sale of “80% frames and receivers,” the tools used to manufacture them, and the
Page 5 of 43
firearm parts used in the assembly process.
26. Each time since then that ATF has moved the goalposts by changing its policy, the
industry – including Plaintiff – has attempted in good faith to adapt to and comply with ATF’s
demands, despite the lack of any legal authority for ATF’s position.
27. ATF’s issuance of a C&D Order to Plaintiff represents the most recent iteration of
ATF’s secret and unannounced policy changes about “80% frames and receivers” – and, in fact,
ATF’s policy as represented to Plaintiff has continued to evolve even as it now presses its new
position against this single retailer.
28. The manner in which ATF is enforcing new and secret rules about “80% frames
and receivers” is wholly inconsistent with the rule of law. On the contrary, “[a] designation by an
unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer, taken out only for use at
a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually
associated with totalitarian régimes.” United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 328 (7th Cir.
2009).
29. Without judicial intervention, ATF will be rewarded in its unlawful action against
Plaintiff as a seller of “80% frames or receivers” and be encouraged in its efforts to, without any
statutory authority for doing so, incrementally move the goalposts to effect policy change (at the
behest of the current administration which repeatedly has expressed hostility to the Second
Amendment rights of Americans, and announced its intention to enact gun control policy without
Congress4).
30. Indeed, ATF’s modus vivendi has been to demand compliance with its vague,
4
See, e.g., https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/ (promising to “[s]top ‘ghost guns,’” or firearms
“assembl[ed] . . . on [one’s] own . . . by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts….”).
Page 6 of 43
arbitrary, and often unlawful policies and orders directed to the firearms industry and gun owners,
which often carry explicit or implicit threats of criminal prosecution, seeking to bully Americans
into yielding to its unlawful actions through use of intimidation, harassment, and threats.
31. This Court’s intervention to protect the firearms industry and gun owners is
necessary to reign in a branch of the federal government that is acting without any legal authority,
and return the constitutional lawmaking power to the Congress, the only branch of government to
which it was entrusted by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
ATF’s Cease-and-Desist Order to JSD Supply, Dated May 9, 2022
32. Shortly after 9:00 AM on the morning of May 12, 2022, two ATF agents knocked
on the door of Plaintiff JSD Supply.
33. The purpose of the agents’ visit was to hand-deliver Plaintiff a copy of an ATF
Cease-and-Desist Order, issued and “signed” (actually digitally stamped) by Matthew P. Varisco,
the Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Philadelphia Field Division. Exhibit “1”.
34. Although delivered on Thursday, May 12, 2022, the ATF C&D Order was dated
three days prior, or Monday, May 9, 2022.
35. The C&D Order stated that “[t]his letter is in regard to the products sold by your
company, JSD Supply….”
36. The C&D Order characterized these “products” as “JSD 80% Lower Receivers,
Jigs, and Gun Parts Kits.”
37. The C&D Order claimed that “ATF[] is aware that JSD Supply is selling and
transferring all the components necessary to produce a fully functional firearm to a single customer
in one or multiple transactions.”
38. In support of this allegation, the C&D Order advanced two separate theories.
39. First, the C&D Order claimed that “ATF has held that kits which include all
Page 7 of 43
components necessary to produce a functional firearm, including the jig or template used to finish
the unfinished frame or receiver, the slide assembly, and the necessary components to complete
the frame or receiver are themselves properly classified as ‘firearms’ under the GCA.” Emphasis
added.
40. The C&D Order further claimed that “[s]pecifically, these kits are a weapon that
may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. These kits are,
therefore, firearms under the GCA and have always been firearms pursuant to statute.”
41. The C&D Order then announced its second theory, that “the complete set of
component parts necessary to create a firearm need not be packaged or sold in a single container
or a single transaction in order to be considered a firearm.” Emphasis added.
42. Rather, the C&D Order claimed that “selling the necessary components to produce
a functional firearm to the same person through multiple purchases or structured transactions at
different times instead of a single sale is equivalent to selling the complete kit to the customer. …
These piecemeal sales circumvent the requirements of the GCA and are unlawful.” Emphasis
added.
43. The C&D Order then claimed that ATF’s legal theories were based on a position
that ATF has “always” held, and in no way were predicated on the agency’s coming formal
administrative omnibus rule change announced in “regulations and definitions under Final Rule
2021R-05F,” which was noticed to take effect on August 24, 2022 (i.e., more than three months
after the date of ATF’s C&D Order).
44. After announcing the agency’s legal theories, the C&D Order ordered Plaintiff to
take three separate actions.
45. First, the C&D Order ordered Plaintiff to “[c]ease and desist the sale of firearms
Page 8 of 43
without a license.” Id. at 2.
46. Second, the C&D Order ordered Plaintiff to “[c]ease and desist the sale of the full
set of component parts necessary to produce or readily converted [sic] into a fully functioning
firearm, whether in a single transaction or in multiple structured transactions.”
47. Third, the C&D Order ordered Plaintiff to “[i]mmediately and fully comply with
and abide by all laws and regulations governing the sale of firearms, frames, and receivers.”
48. Finally, the C&D Order offered that “[f]or any questions, please contact Special
Agent in Charge, Philadelphia Field Division, Matthew P. Varisco….”
ATF’s C&D Order Provided No Specific Instructions or Guidance
49. The ATF C&D Order, although taking issue with “the products sold by your
company,” and clearly ordering Plaintiff to stop selling some of those products, provided no further
clarity or guidance as to how to achieve compliance with ATF’s demands, which are vague and
imprecise.
50. This has made it impossible for Plaintiff to ensure its compliance, except by
shutting down all retail sales, as Plaintiff has done.
51. First, the C&D Order did not identify any “kits which include all components
necessary to produce a functional firearm” that Plaintiff is alleged to sell.
52. In fact, Plaintiff does not sell any such complete, prepackaged “kits” from which a
firearm can be manufactured and them assembled.
53. Second, the C&D Order did not identify with any specificity which of Plaintiff’s
“products,” “parts,” or “components” could not be sold – or not sold in combination with other
specific “products,” “parts,” or “components.”
54. Third, the C&D Order did not explain how Plaintiff is expected to avoid allegedly
“structured” transactions, and avoid unknowingly transferring various unclear combinations of
Page 9 of 43
“products,” “parts,” or “components” to a single person.
55. Of course, even if the notion of a “structured” transaction is now to be imported
from the world of finance into the world of firearms by ATF’s arbitrary decree, it is not Plaintiff,
but rather its customers, who would be alleged to “structure” their transactions by choosing which
of Plaintiff’s “products,” “parts,” and “components” they wish to purchase at a given time or at
different times. Of course, however, there is no law prohibiting Americans from acquiring the
parts to manufacture their own firearms, whether in a single or multiple transactions from one or
more parts sellers.
56. Moreover, many of Plaintiff’s customers have made purchases in the past over
many years, and ATF’s C&D Order did not put any temporal limitations on its warning to avoid
“structuring.” In other words, ATF has not explained whether the sale of a firearm part to a
customer years ago would prevent the sale of a different firearm part today.
57. An additional complexity is created because many of Plaintiff’s customers have
made entirely lawful purchases of firearms parts and related products at gun shows, often in cash,
without there being any record (such as internet purchase order) that can identify specific items
purchased.
58. Finally, when investigating other companies which sell “80% frames and receivers”
and firearm parts, ATF has used undercover informants, including convicted felons, along with
fictitious names, fake addresses, undercover computers masked by use of VPNs, etc., in order to
purchase products.5 Thus, there is simply no way for Plaintiff to conduct business without running
the risk of criminal prosecution based on Defendants’ vague “structuring” theory, if an undercover
5
See ATF warrant affidavit in the case of Polymer80, Inc. (“P80 Warrant”) at ¶¶46, 49-50, 66
(https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/ghostraid-121420-warrant.pdf).
Page 10 of 43
agent or informant makes purchases to acquire all the component parts from which a firearm can
then be manufactured and assembled.
Plaintiff’s Attempts to Clarify ATF’s Vague C&D Order
59. For the reasons stated above, after receiving ATF’s C&D Order, Plaintiff could
conceive of no way to conduct retail sales and still ensure compliance with the agency’s new and
novel, as well as vague and unclear, demands.
60. Thus, out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiff was forced to suspend retail
operations, soon after receiving ATF’s C&D Order on the morning of May 12, 2022. As explained
further below, this included halting all online retail sales of its website, refunding pending orders,
and canceling Plaintiff’s appearance at gun shows over the weekend of May 14-15, 2022, causing
a substantial loss of gross and net income to Plaintiff.
61. Thus, no argument can be made that Plaintiff has not fully and immediately
complied with ATF’s vague, unclear, and unlawful demands in its C&D Order, whatever those
demands might be.
62. After halting retail sales, Plaintiff immediately sought ATF guidance by reaching
out to ATF SAC Varisco, whose C&D Order had promised he would be available for “any
questions.”
63. However, Plaintiff’s call was not returned by SAC Varisco, but instead by a staff
attorney in ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division.
64. That same day, counsel for Plaintiff spoke with two ATF attorneys about the matter,
including ATF Associate Chief Counsel. The substance of that conversation, including Plaintiff’s
good faith attempts to receive guidance and specificity from ATF about the demands in its C&D
Order is recounted in Plaintiff’s letter to ATF. Exhibit “2.”
65. First, counsel for Plaintiff explained that JSD Supply does not sell “complete kits,”
Page 11 of 43
as referenced in ATF’s C&D Order. Id. at 2.
66. ATF did not dispute this. Id.
67. Second, Plaintiff’s counsel sought guidance as to which specific part(s) could be
entirely removed from JSD Supply’s inventory, to result in a fully compliant situation where
Plaintiff would not be viewed as selling “all the components necessary to produce a fully
functional firearm….” Id. at 3.
68. ATF’s representatives declined to provide confirmation or guidance on this issue.
Id.
69. On the contrary, ATF representatives stated that, in fact, it may not be permissible
to simply remove one or more “easily available components” from inventory, in order to achieve
compliance. This position stands in stark contrast to the C&D Order, which on its face prohibits
only the sale of “all the components necessary.” Cf. Exhibit “2” at 3 with Exhibit “1” at 1. ATF’s
position, it would seem, continues to evolve.
70. Third, Plaintiff’s counsel asked whether JSD Supply would be in compliance with
the C&D Order if it entirely stopped selling 80% frames and receivers, and only sold firearm parts
such as barrels, springs, triggers, etc. Id. at 3.
71. Even though there is no reasonable question that such firearm component parts are
entirely unregulated by federal law, ATF representatives could not even confirm that Plaintiff
would be in compliance with ATF’s C&D Order if it continued operations on such a narrow,
limited, clearly lawful basis.
72. With ATF counsel being unable or unwilling to provide any specific guidance,
undersigned counsel prepared and sent a letter to ATF on May 13, 2022, posing the same two,
specific questions as above, and asking ATF for definitive guidance by Wednesday, May 18, 2022
Page 12 of 43
about how to comply with the agency’s C&D Order.
73. ATF confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s letter on May 14, 2022.
74. However, as of the date of this filing, ATF has not provided any substantive
response to Plaintiff’s letter.
75. Plaintiff thus has attempted in good faith to receive guidance from ATF as to how
to comply with its C&D Order, but the agency has refused to provide any guidance at all, and has
only raised further ambiguity.
ATF Has Specifically, Expressly, and Repeatedly Approved the Unregulated Sale of Every
Single Item in Plaintiff’s Inventory
76. As explained above, Plaintiff is predominately a retailer of firearm parts (slides,
barrels, triggers, springs, and numerous other small parts), in addition to precursor, unfinished
“80% frames and receivers,” sometimes accompanied by jigs/mills, drill bits, and other tools that
may be used by the customer in the private manufacturing process. Plaintiff does not sell firearms,
the frames or receivers of firearms, or any other item regulated by the GCA or ATF.
77. None of the items in Plaintiff’s inventory is governed, restricted, or regulated in
any way by the Gun Control Act.
78. Fortunately, this Court does not have to take Plaintiff’s word for it, as ATF has
repeatedly and expressly confirmed the unregulated nature of these items.
79. Over the years, ATF has issued numerous classification letters, rulings, and other
statements, opining that it has no authority to regulate the very products that Plaintiff offers for
sale.
ATF Has Repeatedly Stated that it Does Not Regulate Firearm Parts
80. First, ATF has clarified numerous times that the Gun Control Act does not regulate
firearm parts.
Page 13 of 43
81. For example, ATF’s website answers the question “Does the GCA control the sale
of firearms parts?” with the response “No, except that frames or receivers of firearms are ‘firearms’
as defined in the law and are subject to the same controls as complete firearms.”6
82. Additionally, in a recent search warrant affidavit, ATF explained that “[p]istol
slides are not regulated by ATF, and may be sold, purchased, or transported in interstate commerce
fully assembled.” P80 warrant at ¶12.
83. Similarly, in a recent court filing, ATF explained that “Congress has chosen to
exclude firearms parts from the scope of the GCA, including parts that could be assembled with a
homemade receiver and frame to make a firearm.” California v. ATF, 3:20-cv-06761 (N.D. Ca.)
(ECF # 29, Govt. Motion to Dismiss).
84. Likewise, in a recent May 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ATF explained
that “Prior to passage of the GCA, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (‘FFA’) regulated all firearm
parts,” but that “[d]uring debate on the GCA and related bills introduced to address firearms
trafficking, Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was impractical.” 86 Fed. Reg.
27720.
85. In spite of all of these clear statements that firearm parts are unregulated, ATF has
been either unwilling or unable to confirm that Plaintiff can continue operations, even on a limited
basis selling only firearm parts and not “80% frames and receivers,” and be in compliance with
ATF’s C&D Order.
ATF Has Repeatedly Approved of Incomplete 80% Frames

and Receivers as Non-Firearms
86. Second, ATF does not regulate the manufacture or sale of unfinished, non-firearm
“80% frames and receivers.”
6
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-gca-control-sale-firearms-parts.
Page 14 of 43
87. As ATF’s website explains, “ATF has long held that … [r]eceiver blanks that do
not meet the definition of a ‘firearm’ are not subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act
(GCA).”7
88. Indeed, over the course of many years, ATF has issued numerous classification
letters concluding that a wide variety of so-called “80% frames and receivers” are not firearms,
because they have not reached a sufficient stage of completion to result in classification as a GCA
firearm.
89. Upon information and belief, ATF has issued a classification letter with respect to
every single one of the types of “80% frame or receiver” that Plaintiff offers for sale.
90. First, in January of 2004, ATF approved of a so-called 80% receiver for a
“Government 1911A1 type casting,” holding that it was not a firearm. Exhibit “3” at ATF0058.
91. Plaintiff’s inventory includes such 1911-style, 80% frames of which ATF has
specifically approved.
92. Second, in May of 2009, ATF approved of an AR-15 80% receiver, holding that it
“does not contain any of these critical [impermissible] features” and is “not yet finished to the
point at which it would be classified as a firearm.” See Exhibit “4.” Likewise, in 2013, ATF
established standardized rules for 80% AR-15 style receivers by promulgating ATF Technical
Bulletin 14-01, entitled “Unfinished ‘80%’ AR-15 Style Receivers.” In this bulletin, ATF
explained that “an AR-15 type receiver which has no machining of any kind performed in the area
of the trigger/hammer (fire-control) recess (or cavity) might not be classified as a firearm. Such a
receiver could have all other machining operations performed….” See Exhibit “5” (emphasis
7
%E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegal.
Page 15 of 43
original).
93. Plaintiff’s inventory includes such AR-15 80% receivers, of which ATF has
specifically, repeatedly, and expressly approved.
94. Third, in November of 2015, ATF approved of a “Glock-type ‘GC9 Blank’” frame
manufactured by Polymer80, Incorporated, on the basis that this Glock-style unfinished frame did
not have certain finishing operations performed. See Exhibit “6.” Two years later, in January of
2017, ATF approved of another Polymer80 Glock-style, “compact” size “PF940C” unfinished
frame, on the same theory. See Exhibit “7.”
95. A large portion of Plaintiff’s inventory includes these Polymer80, Glock-style
handgun frames of which ATF has specifically, repeatedly, and expressly approved.
96. Fourth, in August of 2018, ATF approved of a “SS80” subcompact, slimline
Glock-style frame.8
97. Plaintiff’s inventory also includes this SS80, 80% frame.
98. Fifth, November of 2017, Plaintiff received a favorable determination from ATF
with respect to an 80% frame in the style of the Sig Sauer P320 handgun. Exhibit “8.”
99. Plaintiff’s inventory also includes this P320-style 80% frame.
100. In sum, with respect to each of the “80% frames and receivers” that Plaintiff offers
for sale, the ATF has issued at least one favorable classification letter finding that each such frame
or receiver has not reached a sufficient stage of completion to be regulated and thus is not a firearm
under the GCA.
101. Aside from the Final Rule scheduled to take effect on August 24, 2022, which is
still subject to legal challenge based on, inter alia, lack of statutory authority, both before and after
8
https://www.glockstore.com/assets/images/email/SS80-ATF-Ltr.pdf
Page 16 of 43
it becomes effective, ATF has never revoked or otherwise called into question the continued
validity of these numerous classification letters.
ATF Has Repeatedly Approved of “80% Frames and Receivers” Even When
Combined with Jigs, Tools, and Firearm Parts
102. In addition to its dozens of classification letters determining that many different
types of “80% frames and receivers” are not firearms, ATF has also issued letters approving of the
combination of various unregulated items into a “kit” to be sold with the 80% frame or receiver.
103. On September 17, 2014, ATF issued a determination letter about an AR-15 type
80% receiver blank which included a “material removal guide, three drill bits, and an end mill.”
Exhibit “9.” Earl Griffith, the then-Chief of ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (ATF’s lead
subject matter expert) determined that even this combination of an 80% receiver with tools and
other finishing devices was not a “firearm frame or receiver” because it did not “incorporate
indexing characteristics such as locating features for the hammer and trigger pins,” and “is
completely solid in the fire-control area.”
104. In August of 2006, ATF discussed an “incomplete 10/22 Magnum-type receiver.”
Exhibit “10.” Strikingly, ATF opined that “your incomplete receiver was previously examined by
this Branch and was classified as a non-firearm. Selling this item as a ‘kit’ with blueprints, parts,
etc., will not change this classification.” Id. (emphasis added).
105. Likewise, in November of 2011, ATF examined a “sheet-metal replacement []
receiver that has not reached a point in manufacturing to be considered a ‘firearm’ frame/receiver,”
and which was coupled with other parts as a “M44-type kit.” Like its 2006 letter above, ATF
concluded that even the “kit” was not a firearm under the GCA. Exhibit “11.”
106. Similarly, in a December 2013 presentation entitled “Identify AR and AK Type
Receivers and Assorted Manufacturing Methods and Equipment,” ATF explained that “[t]he
Page 17 of 43
internet has expanded the availability of unfinished receivers, firearm parts, firearm parts kits, and
the tools needed to assemble … complete and functional firearms … none of the required materials
are regulated, [and] all may be easily, affordably, and anonymously purchased via the internet.”
Exhibit “12” at 52. Elsewhere in the document, ATF stated that an “unfinished receiver” is “not a
firearm,” and “[p]arts kits” that do not contain a finished “firearm receiver, are not regulated
by any statute other than for importation.” Id. at 3, 28 (emphasis added).
107. Additionally, an “ATF Intelligence Assessment Document,” entitled “Increased
Possession of Privately Made Firearms (PMFs) by Prohibited Persons” makes clear that none of
the items sold by Plaintiff is regulated by federal law, explaining that “[i]ndividual components
and receiver/frame-shaped components required to complete a PMF generally do not meet the
definition of a firearm … [t]he individual components can be purchased as ’80 percent kits’ ….”
Exhibit “13” at 3. This ATF document goes on to explain that “[t]he ATF Form 4473 … is not
required for individual component parts or receiver/frame-shaped components that are not yet
considered firearms.” Id. at 3-4.
108. Finally, the U.S. Attorneys’ Bulletin from November of 2015, entitled “Prosecuting
Firearm Offenses,” describes the process to make a homemade firearm, and explains that, along
with an 80% receiver, a DIY gun owner “can order a lower receiver parts kit, an upper receiver,
barrel, and other parts necessary to assemble a completed firearm that will expel a projectile by an
explosive. All of these accessories are readily available, and the purchaser will not be required to
go through a background check to self-complete a firearm. Additionally, the purchaser will not
have been required to file an ATF Form 4473….”9 Id. at 48 (emphasis added).
109. Each of these documents directly contradicts the position taken by ATF in its C&D
9
https://www.justice.gov/usao/file/794586/download.
Page 18 of 43
Order to Plaintiff – that unfinished “80% frames and receivers” (which ATF repeatedly has
determined to be non-firearms), combined with common firearm parts (which ATF has explained
it does not regulate) magically combine to become more than the sum of their parts as a regulated
“firearm.”
110. On the contrary, zero plus zero does not equal one.
111. In fact, as noted above, ATF has expressly and repeatedly approved of scenarios
where unfinished “80% frames and receivers” are sold together with tools, finishing devices,
instructions, blueprints, templates, and even all the “parts” necessary to complete a fully functional
firearm.
112. ATF’s entirely new, unannounced, and legally unsupported policy change, set forth
in its C&D Order to Plaintiff, is entirely undermined by ATF’s existing letters and rulings – not to
mention completely without statutory authority.
ATF’s Ever-Changing Position About 80% Frames and Receivers
113. The ATF letters and guidance documents listed above document longstanding ATF
policy when it comes to sale of firearm parts, “80% frames and receivers,” and “parts kits” that
contain combinations of both types of unregulated items.
114. ATF has opined not only that each of the 80% receivers Plaintiff sells is not a
firearm, but also has expressly approved of the sale of “kits” including not only such “frame or
receiver” but also firearm “parts.”
115. Relying in good faith on the ATF’s numerous and repeated rulings, classification
decisions, and public representations, the firearms industry has manufactured and sold not only
“80% frames and receivers,” but also firearm parts and “kits,” in order to permit law-abiding gun
owners to purchase and then manufacture their own personal firearms, as has been legal since this
Nation’s founding, and as is protected by the Second Amendment.
Page 19 of 43
116. Then suddenly, without warning, in December of 2020 ATF paid a visit to the
nation’s largest manufacturer of “80% frames and receivers” – Polymer80, Inc..10
117. Whether ATF chooses to characterize this visit as a “raid” or merely a “visit,”
federal agents armed with a search warrant arrived at the company’s headquarters on December
10, 2020.
118. The focus of ATF’s search warrant was to affect the seizure of Polymer80’s popular
“Buy Build Shoot” Kits (“BBS Kit”), which ATF alleged “‘contains all the necessary components’
to build a complete firearm, including ‘the 80% frame kit, complete slide assembly, complete
frame parts kit, 10 round magazine and a pistol case.’” Id. at ¶7.
119. With respect to Polymer80’s sale of its BBS Kits, ATF’s search warrant also
alleged a cornucopia of at least 13 different types of federal crimes. Id. at ¶2.
120. While at Polymer80, ATF agents seized all of the company’s complete BBS Kits.
121. However, ATF agents did not seize any other “80% frames or receivers,” jigs, tools,
or parts, even though Polymer80 manufactured, widely distributed, and made retail sales of “all
the component parts” to manufacture a firearm, separately and aside from its BBS Kits.
122. Had ATF in December 2020 been operating under the new theory announced in its
C&D Order to Plaintiff, its agents certainly would have seized other purportedly illegal items as
well, on the theory that Polymer80 was unlawfully transferring “all the components” to
manufacture a firearm even though not packaged as complete “kits.”
123. Although ATF’s Polymer80 warrant affidavit alleged that numerous federal felony
crimes had been committed, and made a large seizure of BBS kits, to date it appears that no charges
have been brought against Polymer80 in relation to its sale of BBS Kits or any other product.
10
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ghost-gun-company-raided-by-federal-agents-11607670296.
Page 20 of 43
124. Nor have ATF’s dramatic policy shift and curious legal theories yet been tested in
a court of law.
125. Rather, the agency has operated as though it had free reign to coerce compliance
from the industry with its new policy through threats and intimidation, without judicial oversight.
126. On the same day that ATF executed its Polymer80 search warrant, its agents also
paid a visit to online retailer Brownells.com.
127. ATF agents accused Brownells of also selling Polymer80 BBS Kits, and demanded
they be permitted to seize any such kits.
128. Unfortunately for ATF, Brownells demonstrated that it did not sell BBS Kits, and
ATF was sent away empty-handed.
129. However, Brownells did (and still does) sell “all the component parts”11 for a
person to manufacture a firearm – just not packaged together as a “kit.”
130. Had ATF during its December 2020 visit to Brownells been operating under the
new theory announced in its C&D Order to Plaintiff, agents would not have walked away empty
handed.
131. ATF’s C&D Order to plaintiff claims that “ATF has held that kits which include
all components necessary to produce a functional firearm, including the jig or template used to
finish the unfinished frame or receiver, the slide assembly, and the necessary components to
11
https://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/slide-parts/slides/iron-sight-slide-for-glock-17-gen-
3-prod109622.aspx
https://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/slide-parts/parts-kits/slide-parts-kit-for-glock-9mm-
prod123857.aspx?avs%7cManufacturer_1=POLYMER80
https://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/frame-parts/frames/pf940cv1-80-frame-textured-for-
glock-19-23-32-prod97837.aspx?avs%7cManufacturer_1=POLYMER80
https://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/frame-parts/parts-kits/frame-parts-kit-for-glock-gen-
3-9mm-prod127127.aspx?avs%7cManufacturer_1=POLYMER80
Page 21 of 43
complete the frame or receiver are themselves properly classified as ‘firearms’ under the GCA.”
Exhibit “1” at 1.
132. On the contrary and in reality, ATF has never “held” this or anything like it. Even
if it had, the statute would not support such a conclusion.
133. Aside from its seizures of BBS Kits, ATF did not issue a cease-and-desist letter to
Polymer80, Brownells, or any other retailer that is known, during its December 2020 actions.
134. Nor did ATF issue any “open letter” or “industry circular” to the firearm
community.
135. Nor did ATF make any public announcement or post anything on its website stating
its new policy.
136. In fact, ATF provided absolutely no official public guidance whatsoever as to its
policy on “80% frames and receivers,” or how manufacturers, retailers, and customers can comply
with the agency’s ever-changing, secret (and legally unsupported) policy.
137. Instead, ATF has (seemingly deliberately) left the firearms community entirely in
the dark about its policies on “80% frames and receivers,” firearm parts, and “kits.”
138. Nevertheless, subsequent to ATF’s December 2020 visits to Polymer80 and
Brownells.com, members of the industry quickly began to comply with what was perceived to be
ATF’s new policy on “kits,” and began to separate BBS Kits into component parts, so that they
could not be accused of offering a complete “kit” for a person to manufacture a firearm.
139. At present, it appears that virtually no companies offer complete “kits” to
manufacture a firearm.
140. Rather, if a customer wishes to purchase “all the component parts” to manufacture
a firearm, he must purchase several different components, such as a slide, slide parts kit, frame,
Page 22 of 43
and frame parts kit.
141. Indeed, this modification of product offerings has become industry standard since
December of 2020.
142. This “voluntary” compliance by the industry seemed to satisfy the ATF as well.
Since 2020, to Plaintiff’s knowledge, the agency has not taken further action against the hundreds
of online retailers who, just like Plaintiff, sell various parts and components which can be
purchased and used by a customer to manufacture a privately made firearm.
ATF’s Legal Theories Are Without Merit
143. As explained above, the ATF C&D Order issued to Plaintiff is predicated on two
separate legal theories with respect to Plaintiff’s operations. First, ATF claims that selling
“complete kits” from which a firearm can be manufactured represents the transfer of an actual
firearm. Second, ATF claims that “selling and transferring all the components necessary to
produce a fully functional firearm to a single customer in one or multiple transactions” represents
the transfer of a firearm. Exhibit “1” at 1 (emphasis added).
144. As explained above, ATF’s first claim, that the sale of “complete kits” constitutes
the sale of a firearm, is a departure from the agency’s long-standing policy, and was first enforced
against Polymer80 in December of 2020. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, ATF’s second claim, that
companies must actively prohibit customers from purchasing “all the components necessary” to
manufacture a firearm, is entirely new and without precedent.
145. ATF’s C&D Order does not elucidate as to the specifics of ATF’s legal theory as
to how an 80% receiver (which ATF and federal law both say is not a firearm) together with firearm
parts (which ATF and federal both say are unregulated) together can become a regulated “firearm”
However, ATF previously has advanced two legal theories, neither of which is persuasive.
146. An Item Must Be a “Firearm” before it Can Be a “Handgun”
Page 23 of 43
147. First, in a February 2018 letter issued to Polymer80, ATF refused to classify a “full
size” 80% handgun frame, even though the agency had just classified a virtually-identical
“compact” size 80% handgun frame the prior year. Cf. Exhibit “6” (approving of a Polymer80
“Glock-type ‘GC9 Blank’” frame and Exhibit “7” (approving of a Polymer80 “PF940C” Glock-
style 80% handgun frame) with Exhibit “14” (refusing to classify a Polymer80 “PF940V2” Glock-
style 80% handgun frame).
148. As justification for its 2018 refusal to classify Polymer80’s newest product, ATF
claimed that it “will not render a classification on a partial product submission,” demanding that
Polymer80 resubmit its 80% frame together with the other items that are shipped in the box, such
as the milling jig, drill bits, and frame pins (tools which the hobbyist can use to manufacture a
finished firearm frame from an “80% frame or receiver”). Exhibit “14” at 4.
149. To plaintiff’s knowledge, this was the first time that ATF refused to render a
classification of an 80% frame or receiver on the theory that other unregulated tools (jig/mill, drill
bits) did not accompany the product submission.
150. What’s more, prior ATF classification letters have approved of 80% receivers both
with (Exhibit “9”) and without (Exhibit “8”) such tools, providing absolutely no indication that the
inclusion of such items have any legal effect on the classification of an 80% frame or receiver.
151. Indeed, ATF classification letters have specifically disclaimed any such argument,
advised that adding additional parts to create a “kit … will not change th[e] classification” of an
80% frame or receiver. Exhibit “10”.
152. As the basis for its 2018 refusal to classify Polymer80’s product, ATF advanced
the theory that a Polymer80 frame might be a “firearm” under 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3) because
it might be a “handgun” under 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(29). Exhibit “14” at 4; see also Exhibit
Page 24 of 43
“15” at ¶65.
153. ATF’s reasoning puts the cart before the horse.
154. In fact, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(29) expressly defines a “handgun” as either:
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a
single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be
assembled.12
155. In other words, under either subsection of Section 921(a)(29), a “handgun” must
first be “a firearm” under Section 921(a)(3) before it can be a “handgun” under Section 921(a)(29).
156. An 80% receiver, even in “kit” combination with other parts, does not meet the
definition of a “handgun” under Section (a)(29) because it is not already a “firearm” under Section
921(a)(3).
157. Plaintiff is not aware that ATF has advanced this curious legal theory either before
or since its refusal to classify a Polymer80 product in 2018, and the search warrant it served against
Polymer80 in 2020.
158. Strikingly, ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F does not even mention Section 921(a)(29)
in this context, and does not make the claim that 80% receivers or what it terms “weapon parts
kits” are “firearms” under Section 921(a)(3) because they are “handguns” under Section
921(a)(29).
159. The omission of this curious legal theory from ATF’s Final Rule would appear to
12
Clearly, an unfinished 80% frame or receiver, even in the presence of other parts, is not capable
of being “assembled” into a handgun until it is fully manufactured into a complete firearm “frame
or receiver.” Even ATF agrees. See P80 warrant at ¶12 (“The distinction between a finished and
unfinished frame is that a finished frame is capable of receiving the components necessary to
assemble it into an operable firearm.”).
Page 25 of 43
indicate that the agency has abandoned it, and rightfully so, because it is entirely without merit.
A “Parts Kit” Does Not Turn an Unfinished 80% Frame or Receiver into A Firearm
160. Second, rather than rely on the argument that 80% “kits” are “handguns” under
Section 921(a)(29) and therefore firearms under Section 921(a)(3), ATF in the Final Rule instead
relies on an entirely different legal theory in order to classify 80% receivers and parts kits as
firearms – namely, application of the term “readily” in Section 921(a)(3)(A).13
161. Although ATF claims that the Final Rule is not the basis of its enforcement action
against Plaintiff, the Final Rule describes what appears to be the only other legal theory that ATF
has ever advanced as to why an unfinished and unregulated 80% receiver could possibly transform
into a “firearm” through the inclusion of additional unregulated gun parts.
162. Section 921(a)(3) defines “firearm,” in pertinent part, as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
13
ATF has never used the concept of “readily” from Section 921(a)(3)(A) and the amount of time
needed to finish an item into a firearm, when it comes to classifying unfinished 80% receivers.
Rather, historically, ATF’s classification letters for unfinished GCA firearms have focused on the
completeness of the product – the specific milling operations that have been performed, as
compared to milling operations that have not been performed. See Exhibit “17” (“If you plan to
sell a solid bar having the exterior profile of an MP40 submachinegun receiver and having no
internal machining, the item would not be a firearm.”); Exhibit “18” (“the interior cavity has not
been completely machined”); Exhibit “19” (“block of metal … and (2) holes ... must be drilled out
… the magazine opening and the receiver cavity are completely machined out….”). Even ATF’s
current existing website says that certain 80% receivers are not firearms because “the fire-control
cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the ‘stage of manufacture’ which
would result in the classification of a firearm according to the GCA.” See
%E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegal (using pictures to demonstrate what is
not considered a “firearm” and at what stage it becomes a “firearm”). In other words, ATF’s
examinations of 80% receivers focused on subsection (B) of Section 921(a)(3) – whether an item
is or is not “the frame or receiver of any such weapon” – rather than on subsection (A) – whether
an 80% receiver or related parts kit “may readily be converted to expel a projectile.” ATF’s C&D
Order to Plaintiff, and actions in the upcoming Final Rule 2021R-05F, thus represent a dramatic
change in longstanding agency policy, without acknowledging the shift, much less providing a
reasoned explanation for it.
Page 26 of 43
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; [or]
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon. [Emphasis added.]14
163. In the Final Rule, ATF discusses that “[w]eapon parts kits, or aggregations of
weapon parts, some of which contain all of the components necessary to complete a functional
weapon within a short period of time, have been increasingly sold to individuals either directly
from manufacturers of the kits or retailers….” Id. at 24662.
164. ATF’s C&D Order to Plaintiff uses nearly identical language to the Final Rule, yet
claims to have no connection to the Final Rule.
165. The Final Rule claims that such “parts kits” or “aggregations of ... all of the
components” are “parts kits that are designed to or may readily be completed,15 assembled,
restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” Id. at 24653.
166. This language in the Final Rule loosely paraphrases Section 921(a)(3)’s language
from the GCA (“will or is designed to or may readily be converted to”), cobbled together with
language drawn from the National Firearms Act’s definition of a “machinegun” (“shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot” and “combination of parts from which a
machinegun can be assembled”) and possibly even Section 921(a)(29)’s language about
“handguns” (“any combination of parts from which a [handgun] can be assembled.”).
167. This linguistic concoction, compiled from several different sections of two entirely
different Congressional enactments, discussing entirely different types of regulated “firearms,”
constitutes an expansive and improper revision of the statutory text in Section 921(a)(3)(A).
168. Nevertheless, this appears to represent ATF’s only legal theory as to how
14
ATF’s C&D Order to Plaintiff merely quotes both halves of Section 921(a)(3), but does not
explain which section ATF believes Plaintiff’s product fall under.
15
The word “completed” appears in neither the GCA nor the NFA.
Page 27 of 43
unregulated 80% receivers, in the presence of other unregulated firearm parts, somehow together
constitute regulated “firearms” under federal law.
169. In other words, the reasoning contained in the ATF Final Rule clearly is the basis
for ATF’s C&D Order to Plaintiff, even though the C&D Order denies it, and even though the
Final Rule is not yet effective.
170. There are at least three separate flaws with the agency’s legal position.
171. First, the term “readily” clearly applies to complete “weapons” in Section
921(a)(3)(A),16 but has no application to the point at which an unfinished item becomes a finished
“frame or receiver” under Section 921(a)(3)(B). See Russello v United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78
(1983) (“where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in
another ... it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion or exclusion.”); see also A. Scalia and B. Garner, Reading Law, at 112 (“The omission
of words from a statute must be considered intentional on the part of the legislature. Words may
not be supplied in a statute where the statute is intelligible without the addition of the alleged
omission. Words may not be inserted in a statutory provision under the guise of interpretation.”).
172. For a device to be capable of “readily be[ing] converted” into a firearm it must first
be a “weapon.” Yet an unfinished 80% receiver – something that ATF acknowledges is merely a
precursor to being a finished firearm frame or receiver – is not a “weapon.” First, it clearly is not
an operational firearm that “will” fire ammunition. Second, not even fully manufactured, and
certainly not assembled or operable, such a device cannot fire even blank ammunition. An 80%
16
Adopted as part of the 1968 GCA, this language was “[a]dded to the term ‘firearm’ [to regulate]
weapons which ‘may readily be converted to’ a firearm. The purpose of this addition is to include
specifically any starter gun designed for use with blank ammunition which will or which may be
readily converted to expel a projectile….” Exhibit “20.”
Page 28 of 43
receiver (or even a complete parts “kit”) cannot be used as a “weapon” in any sense of the word
(other than perhaps by throwing it at someone). On the other hand, even a blank firing or starter
gun can be used as a “weapon” through threats and intimidation. Nor has an 80% receiver (even
if sold as part of a kit with other parts) ever been deemed a “weapon” of any sort.
173. Second, there is a more fundamental reason that an 80% receiver as part of a so-
called “weapon parts kit” is not a “firearm” under Section 921(a)(3)(A).
174. Under Section 921(a)(3)(A), in order to “complete[], restore[], assemble[], or
otherwise convert[]” an 80% frame or receiver (plus a collection of parts) into a functioning
“weapon,” two steps must occur. First, the 80% frame or receiver must be fully manufactured into
a functioning frame or receiver governed by the statute. Second, the functional “weapon” must be
assembled using that frame or receiver.
175. Yet under Section 921(a)(3)(B), there is only one step that must be taken to turn an
item into a firearm “frame or receiver” – manufacture of the 80% frame or receiver into a
functioning frame or receiver governed by the statute.
176. In other words, an 80% frame or receiver becomes a Section 921(a)(3)(B) “frame
or receiver” long before it ever becomes a Section 921(a)(3)(A) “weapon.”
177. Thus, the addition of parts, jigs, tools, etc. to an 80% frame or receiver has no
bearing on when the item becomes a “firearm,” as the kit will become a “frame or receiver” (and
thus a firearm) long before they become a functional “weapon” (and thus a firearm).
178. Third, a “weapon parts kit” contains an unfinished and unregulated 80% product,
which ATF has determined is not a “frame or receiver” under federal law. Yet in order to be a
“weapon” described in Section 921(a)(3)(A), an object must contain a finished frame or receiver.
179. Indeed, Section 921(a)(3)(B) describes as a firearm “the frame or receiver of any
Page 29 of 43
such weapon,” clearly indicating that “any such weapon” under Section (A) must contain a “frame
or receiver.”
180. Since ATF acknowledges that an 80% frame or receiver is not a frame or receiver
covered by the statute, a kit that incorporates an 80% frame or receiver cannot possibly be a
“weapon” under section (A).
181. In short, there is no way for ATF to hammer the square peg of 80% “kits” into the
round hole of Section 921(a)(3). St. Vincent Randolph Hosp., Inc. v. Price, 869 F.3d 510, 513 (7th
Cir. 2017) (“When the agency just asserts an ipse dixit, then the decision falls for the lack of a
reason.”); see also Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 726 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“It is in
fact comforting to witness the reality that he who lives by the ipse dixit dies by the ipse dixit.).
ATF Is Enforcing Its Final Rule Against Plaintiff, Three Months Prior to its Effective Date
182. Even if one of ATF’s flawed legal theories were to be adopted here, the C&D Order
issued against Plaintiff contains another fundamental flaw – namely, that it represents ATF’s
attempt to enforce new policies from the Final Rule that are not scheduled to take effect until more
than three months from now, on August 24, 2022.
183. To be sure, the C&D Order makes the claim that ATF’s position has been taken
“notwithstanding the recently announced regulations and definitions under Final Rule 2021R-
05F.” Exhibit “1” at 1.
184. However, the C&D Order adopts the same (flawed) legal reasoning of, and actually
uses identical language in, the Final Rule. Thus, there is no reasonable way to understand ATF’s
action against Plaintiff other than as an attempt to implement the Final Rule before it takes effect.
185. Moreover, when Plaintiff’s counsel requested more information about the C&D
Order from ATF, the agency’s lawyers specifically instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to examine the
Final Rule in order to better understand ATF’s position as announced in the C&D Order. Exhibit
Page 30 of 43
“2” at 3-4.
Application of ATF’s C&D Order Only to Plaintiff Constitutes Harassment
186. Implementing a Final Rule not scheduled to take effect for more than three months,
against only one of innumerable similarly situated businesses, constitutes selective, targeted
enforcement, based on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
187. Indeed, there are dozens, if not hundreds (or possibly thousands) of other
companies across the country and internet which offer for sale “all the component parts” necessary
for a customer to manufacture a complete firearm.
188. This raises the obvious question as to why ATF made the decision to target Plaintiff
with a cease-and-desist order, effectively shutting down its business, for doing nothing more than
following standard industry practice.
189. If ATF had wanted to change (again) its secret, unsupported policy on 80% frames
and receivers, the agency had the option of issuing an Open Letter to all manufacturers and retailers
of 80% receivers and firearm parts, giving notice to all of the change.
190. Indeed, ATF has a great deal of experience with drafting such Open Letters. See
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/firearms-open-letters.
191. On the other hand, forcing the shut-down of one company’s business, under vague
but implicit threat of criminal prosecution, no way to effect an industry-wide change based on a
secret ATF policy.
192. What is more, in addition to companies in the Second Amendment industry such as
Plaintiff, which sell 80% unfinished frames and receivers along with firearm parts and tools, there
are tens of thousands other companies and stores across the country that also sell “all components
necessary” for a person to manufacture a firearm.
193. For example, virtually any home supply or hardware store, big box retailer, or
Page 31 of 43
online marketplace contains materials and components for sale which can be used or repurposed
to manufacture a firearm, even without an “80% frame or receiver.” See, e.g.,
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/BSP-SMG_Book.pdf (providing blueprints on how to
build a “a 9mm submachine gun utilizing off the shelf ‘British Standard Pipe’ (BSP) Fittings,” and
“plumbing / hardware products and components which … are readily available from most good
trade plumbing outlets.”).
194. Just as with the products Plaintiff sells, the items available at these ubiquitous
retailers (pipes, fittings, rods, sheet metal, tubing, metal plate, nuts and bolts, etc.) are not firearms
under federal law, and thus are entirely unregulated by ATF, and cannot be regulated by the agency
absent an additional grant of statutory authority by Congress.
195. And just as with the products Plaintiff sells, the items available at these retailers do
not magically become a firearm on the theory that a person can walk through a store, put into his
cart, and head to the checkout aisle with a “complete set of component parts necessary to create a
firearm,” which ATF says “need not be packaged or sold in a single container or a single
transaction in order to be considered a firearm.” See Exhibit “1” at 1.
196. Yet in spite of the fact that Plaintiff’s business is (from a legal perspective) no
different than any of these other retailers, ATF does not seem to have issued a cease-and-desist
order to any Home Depot, Lowes, Amazon, eBay, Walmart, or Target.
197. Nor could ATF reasonably respond that these other products (raw materials such as
metal, plastic, or wood, or ordinary household objects) are obviously not firearms, unlike ATF
alleges Plaintiff’s products to be.
198. Indeed, when asked to classify a metal water bottle – along with a piece of paper
theorizing how one might be able to turn that water bottle into a firearm – ATF responded that the
Page 32 of 43
metal water bottle (by itself) might actually be a firearm, or even a machinegun. Exhibit “16.”
199. That determination, reaching the shocking opinion that a common household object
(with nothing else) might be a firearm, came from the top subject matter experts at the agency
tasked with enforcing this nation’s gun laws.
200. No respect, and certainly no deference, is due to any legal theory, decision-making
process, or subject matter “expert” opinion that provides such absurd results.
201. On the contrary, none of the products (or combinations thereof) that Plaintiff sells
is a firearm under federal law, a fact confirmed not only by numerous ATF classifications, letters,
and opinions, but most importantly by the plain text of the statute.
202. Accordingly, ATF’s C&D Order to Plaintiff lacks statutory authority, and should
be invalidated.
Facts Relating to Emergency/Injunctive Relief
203. Plaintiff is, primarily, a retailer of firearms parts and accessories which were left
wholly unregulated by the Gun Control Act.
204. Thus, Defendant ATF is entirely without authority to regulate any portion of
Plaintiff’s business.
205. Yet on May 12, 2022, Plaintiff received a hand-delivered Cease and Desist Order
from ATF, ordering Plaintiff to take certain actions in order to come into compliance with vague
and unclear demands by the agency.
206. Due to the vague and ambiguous nature of ATF’s C&D Order to Plaintiff, shortly
after receiving that letter Plaintiff was forced to stop retail sales, shutter its website and cancel all
outstanding orders, in order to ensure full compliance with ATF’s demands.
207. ATF’s C&D Order to Plaintiff thus has caused great financial harm, amounting to
tens of thousands of dollars of sales, every day that Plaintiff remains shut down.
Page 33 of 43
208. As of May 11, 2022, JSD Supply employed more than a dozen individuals, each of
whom has a family to support and who relies on the income provided by Plaintiff’s business
operations.
209. Without a source of revenue, Plaintiff soon will not be able to retain these
employees.
210. Without a source of revenue or the ability to sell any of its products, Plaintiff soon
will not be able to continue to exist as a company.
211. In addition to the direct financial harm caused by ATF’s C&D Order, Plaintiff is
also losing unquantifiable amounts of goodwill with its customer base as a direct result of
compliance with ATF’s vague demands, having had to cancel pending orders, and halt new orders
to customers who wish to purchase Plaintiff’s products.
212. Plaintiff cannot reasonably interpret how far ATF’s vague C&D Order goes in
attempting to regulate vague concepts such as “kits” or various “sets” of component parts
regardless of whether “packaged or sold in a single container or a single transaction,”
213. Even after ATF promised to address “any questions” Plaintiff had, and even after
Plaintiff sought such promised clarification from the ATF (hoping to resume business operations
on at least a limited basis), ATF was unwilling to answer simple, straightforward questions and
refused to provide any clarity at all as to what products Plaintiff is “allowed” to sell to its
customers.
214. As a result, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent the ATF a formal letter on May 13,
2022, seeking clarification as to specific questions regarding compliance, and seeking a response
by May 18, 2022. Exhibit “2.”
215. As of the date of this Complaint, ATF has neither provided any substantive
Page 34 of 43
response to that letter, nor has answered the specific questions posed by Plaintiff.
216. Defendants, having refused to provide meaningful guidance as to how to comply
with their vague demands, left Plaintiff with no realistic option other than to file this action, as
Plaintiff is not able to remain in operation with ATF’s Sword of Damocles dangling overhead,
notwithstanding that Plaintiff has not violated any federal law or regulation.
217. Plaintiff thus asks the Court to direct ATF to operate within the jurisdiction of the
statutes written by Congress, rather than by new and secret policies created at will, all the while
refusing to provide guidance to the industry – and in particular Plaintiff – on how to comply with
those secret standards.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A))
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
218. Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
219. ATF’s challenged C&D Order to Plaintiff constitutes “agency action” pursuant to
5 U.S.C. § 551(13) for purposes of review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5
U.S.C. § 702.
220. Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5
U.S.C. §706(2)(A).
221. A court may hold that an agency action is arbitrary and capricious when the agency
has failed to consider relevant evidence or articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.
222. An agency’s departure from prior practice can serve as an additional basis for
finding an agency’s action to be arbitrary and capricious. In this case, Defendants have dispensed
with countless determinations and classifications that are contrary to the agency’s position
Page 35 of 43
announced in the C&D Order, without acknowledging the change, much less providing a reasoned
explanation for the agency’s tectonic policy shift.
223. It is undisputed that federal law does not regulate firearms parts, yet Defendants’
actions against Plaintiff constitute an attempt to do just that, returning the state of the law to the
repealed and replaced Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
224. ATF’s C&D Order also represents an advance attempt to enforce an agency Final
Rule which is not scheduled to take effect for more than three months.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C))
IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY
226. Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is
“in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 706(2)(C).
227. Attempts by an agency to regulate and control the sale of items that federal law
does not regulate violates the APA.
228. The ATF C&D Order challenged in this case was issued in an attempt to assert the
agency’s control over an area of commerce that federal law clearly and unambiguously does not
regulate. Indeed, no federal law gives Defendants the authority to regulate the domestic
manufacture, sale, or transfer of unfinished 80% frames and receivers (non-firearms), related tools
and finishing devices, or non-receiver firearm parts used to complete them.
229. Defendants’ C&D Order to Plaintiff thus is ultra vires, in excess of ATF’s statutory
jurisdiction or authority, as federal law does not give the ATF any authority to regulate Plaintiff’s
business or the items it sells.
230. Defendants may only exercise the authority conferred to them by statute. Neither
Page 36 of 43
the NFA nor the GCA confer upon Defendants the power to rewrite the statute or promulgate a
rule in open defiance of statutory text, and certainly does not give the agency power to revive a
federal law long since repealed, namely the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT)
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
232. The Second Amendment provides that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
233. To be sure, federal courts generally have sanctioned (rightly or wrongly) “laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
234. But in this case, Congress has explicitly not chosen to regulate the manufacture,
distribution, or sale of firearm parts, or unfinished 80% frames and receivers, which are (at best)
unregulated precursors to components regulated by the GCA.
235. Indeed, whereas the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 explicitly regulated “any part or
parts” of a firearm, Congress found such regulation “impractical” and decided to eliminate
regulation of firearm parts with passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
236. Defendant’s attempts to regulate by administrative fiat that which Congress has
explicitly determined should be left unregulated violates the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms.
237. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the Second Amendment protects each
individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008).
238. In order to engage in the constitutionally protected activities of “keeping” and
Page 37 of 43
“bearing” firearms, weapons first must be acquired.
239. It is thus beyond serious debate that the Second Amendment protects the right of
individuals to make their own privately made firearms, and thus to acquire the parts and materials
with which to do so. Likewise, the Constitution protects the corresponding right to sell firearm
components, magazines, ammunition, and accessories, just as the freedoms of speech and press
protect the right to buy and sell newspapers, books, paper, and ink. Indeed, it would not mean
much if there was a right to make a firearm, but no ability to purchase the materials necessary to
do so.
240. It is beyond reasonable debate that lawful firearm ownership necessarily includes
the ability to acquire arms. Other courts have recognized the connection between the right to keep
and bear arms, and the ability to commercially purchase and sell weapons. See Ezell v. City of
Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[t]he right to possess firearms for protection implies
a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use[.]”); Teixeira v. Cty. of
Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 677 (9th Cir. 2017) (“the core Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms for self-defense ‘wouldn’t mean much’ without the ability to acquire arms.”); Andrews v.
State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871) (“The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase
them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable
for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746
F.3d 953, 967 (9th Cir. 2014) (Second amendment preserves “a corresponding right to obtain’ the
‘necessary’ arms and ammunition[.]”); Elhert v. Settle, CL20000582, 2020 Va. Cir. LEXIS 119,
*7 (July 14, 2020) (“The lack of a right to buy and sell arms would negate the right to keep arms
as well as defeat the purpose of the right stated in the prefatory clause....”) (emphasis added).
241. Defendants’ C&D Order to Plaintiff, having been issued completely outside any
Page 38 of 43
authority granted ATF by Congress under any statute, infringes the Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT)
DUE PROCESS VAGUENESS
243. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of property without the due process
of law. U.S. Const. Amend. V.
244. Plaintiff has a property right in the continued running of its business, and
Defendants are prohibited from depriving Plaintiff of that property absent due process of law.
245. The fundamental requirement of procedural due process is the opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319 (1976).
246. Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights were violated when Defendants caused the
C&D Order to be delivered to Plaintiff, making demands without any statutory authority or right,
with respect to wholly unregulated products – and without an ability for Plaintiff to challenge the
C&D Order before it was imposed on the business.
247. Then, instead of providing the Plaintiff the promised answers to its questions (see
Exhibit “1” at 2), ATF refused to clarify what Plaintiff could lawfully do (Exhibit “2” at 3), even
though ATF has no authority to regulate a lawful business that only sells firearm parts.17
248. Also implicit in the Due Process Clause is the principle that the law (including the
law as announced by an administrative agency in a cease-and-desist order) must be clear so that
17
See Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) (“a statute which either forbids or
requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of
law.”). “Moreover, it requires legislatures to set reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement
officials and triers of fact in order to prevent ‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Smith v.
Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572-73 (1974).
Page 39 of 43
ordinary persons may understand it.
249. As the Supreme Court has held, “the prohibition of vagueness in criminal
statutes…is ‘essential’ of due process, required by both ‘ordinary notions of fair play and the
settled rules of law.’” Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 1212 (2018).
250. In this case, ATF has injected ambiguity into an otherwise unambiguous statute,
presumably in order to provide some cover for its arbitrary action declaring items unregulated by
the GCA to be subject to the agency’s regulatory powers, and then to order a company that sells
those unregulated products to stop selling various unspecified objects, under vague threat of
criminal prosecution.
251. Further, as the Second Circuit has held, such ultra vires conduct violates Due
Process principles. See Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 779 (2d Cir. 2007).
252. If a government agency does “not have authority for the actions it took” then those
actions are “ultra vires and, as a result, sufficiently arbitrary to amount to a substantive due process
violation.” Id.
253. As established above, the Defendants’ action exceeds the scope of their statutory
authority and thus violate Plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process rights.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)
254. Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein
255. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides: “In a case of actual controversy within its
jurisdiction, any court of the United States may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28
U.S.C. 2201(a).
256. Absent a declaratory judgment, there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will
Page 40 of 43
additionally suffer irreparable injury in the future.
257. There is an actual controversy between the parties of sufficient immediacy and
reality to warrant issuance of a declaratory judgment.
258. This Court possesses an independent basis for jurisdiction over the parties.
259. A judgment declaring that Defendants’ actions (1) violates the statute, (2) violates
the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, (3) seeks to unlawfully apply the Final Rule in
advance of its effective date, and (4) seeks to impose an arbitrary regulatory and enforcement
authority over Plaintiff’s business, will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal
relations at issue and will terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and
controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
260. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a declaration declaring Defendants’ customs,
policies, and practices void and unenforceable.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant all appropriate relief, including:
a. The issuance of a temporary restraining order, enjoining Defendants from enforcing,
pursuing, or otherwise taking any action against Plaintiff with respect to ATF’s C&D
Order of May 9, 2022;
b. The issuance of a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from enforcing against
Plaintiff the demands made in ATF’s May 9, 2022 C&D Order to Plaintiff, or from
taking any other action against Plaintiff as a result of that letter;
c. A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-
2202) or other applicable law, that:
1. holds unlawful and sets aside Defendants’ C&D Order, finding it to be null,
void, and unenforceable, contrary to law and in excess of the agency’s statutory
Page 41 of 43
authority;
2. declares that firearm parts are not regulated by federal law and outside ATF’s
authority to control;
3. declares that Plaintiff may continue to sell unregulated firearm parts other than
80% unfinished frames and receivers without violating federal law; and
4. declares that Plaintiff may continue to sell unregulated firearm parts along side
or together with unregulated 80% unfinished frames or receivers and the
unregulated tools or parts needed to complete them, in any amount or
combination thereof, without violating federal law;
d. An order permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing against Plaintiff the claims
and demands made in ATF’s C&D Order of May 9, 2022, and permanently enjoining
Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule (2021R-05F) ahead of its date of
implementation of August 24, 2022;
e. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other applicable
statute or authority; and
f. Any other relief that this Court in its discretion deems just and proper.
Page 42 of 43
Dated: May 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ David J. Berardinelli
David J. Berardinelli (Pa. ID No. 79402)
DEFOREST KOSCELNIK & BERARDINELLI
436 Seventh Ave., 30th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
T: 412-227-3100
F: 412-227-3130
Email: berardinelli@deforestlawfirm.com
Robert J. Olson*
WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.
370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4
Vienna, VA 22180-5615
T: 703-356-5070
T: 540-450-8777
F: 703-356-5085
Email: wjo@mindspring.com
*Admission pro hac vice pending
Stephen D. Stamboulieh* (MS ID No. 102784)

STAMBOULIEH LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 428
Olive Branch, MS 38654
T: 601-852-3440
Email: stephen@sdslaw.us
*Admission pro hac vice pending
Page 43 of 43

NOT AN LLC d/b/a/ JSD SUPPLY, )

) Case No.___________
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, )
FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; UNITED )
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and )
GARY M. RESTAINO AS THE ACTING )
DIRECTOR OF ATF, )
)
Defendants. )
)
__________________________________________)
VERIFICATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I, Jordan Vinroe, am the owner of Not An LLC d/b/a JSD
Supply in the above-captioned matter. I declare that I have read the Verified Complaint in the
above-captioned matter. I verify that the averments of fact contained therein are true and correct
to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief where indicated.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May19 ProspectPennsylvania.

__, 2022 in __________,
____________________________________
Jordan Vinroe, on behalf of Not an LLC d/b/a
JSD Supply, Plaintiff

NOT AN LLC d/b/a/ JSD SUPPLY, Case No.___________
Plaintiff,
v.
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and
GARY M. RESTAINO AS THE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF ATF,
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I declare under penalty of perjury that a copy of Plaintiff Not An LLC d/b/a JSD Supply’s
Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive was served today via First Class Mail postage
prepaid and electronic mail to:
Daniel Riess (TX Bar #24037359)

Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
1100 L Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 200005
Phone: 202-353-3098
Fax: 202-616-8460
Email: Daniel.Riess@usdoj.gov
Matthew P. Varisco
Special Agent in Charge
Philadelphia Field Division, ATF
601 Walnut Street, Suite 1000E
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 215-446-7800
Email: PhilDiv@atf.gov
Date: May 18, 2022 s/ David J. Berardinelli

David J. Berardinelli
Case 2:05-mc-02025 Document 537-1 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit "1"
WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILLIAM J. OLSON
(VA, D.C.) 370 MAPLE AVENUE WEST, SUITE 4
ROBERT J. OLSON VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22180-5615
(VA, D.C.)
TELEPHONE (703) 356-5070 114 CREEKSIDE LANE
JEREMIAH L. MORGAN
WINCHESTER, VA 22602-2429
(D.C., CA ONLY) FAX (703) 356-5085
_____ TELEPHONE (540) 450-8777
FAX (540) 450-8771
E-MAIL: wjo@mindspring.com
HERBERT W. TITUS
(1937-2021) http://www.lawandfreedom.com
May 13, 2022

via email to jeffrey.cohen@atf.gov
Jeffrey Cohen, Esquire

Associate Chief Counsel
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226
Re: ATF Cease & Desist Letter to JSD Supply Dated May 9, 2022
Dear Mr. Cohen:
As you know from our prior communication, our firm represents JSD Supply. This letter
follows up on our conversation of yesterday afternoon, May 12, 2022.
To recap, on the morning of May 12, 2022, the ATF Philadelphia Field Division served
our client, JSD Supply, with a cease-and-desist letter (enclosed) dated three days prior. This
letter came as a great surprise, as JSD Supply does not sell any item that is regulated by ATF, its
product inventory including only unfinished (non-firearm) frames and receivers (known as 80%
frames and receivers) and firearm parts such as handgun slides, barrels, triggers, etc.
Yet, in spite of ATF’s lack of any statutory authority to regulate sellers of such items,
ATF’s cease-and-desist letter demands that JSD Supply stop selling certain unidentified products
(or combinations of products) in its inventory, on the theory that the sale of unfinished (and thus
unregulated) firearm frames, together with unregulated firearm parts, supposedly constitutes a
regulated firearm under federal law. On the contrary, zero plus zero does not equal one.1
Putting aside the serious inadequacies with ATF’s curious legal theory (which may soon
be tested), yesterday’s cease-and-desist letter was entirely vague and unclear as to which specific
1
As ATF’s website explains, “[r]eceiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a
‘firearm,’” such as those sold by JSD Supply, “are not subject to regulation under the Gun
Control Act (GCA).” Moreover, ATF’s website answers to the question “Does the GCA control
the sale of firearms parts?” with the response “No, except that frames or receivers of firearms are
‘firearms’ as defined in the law and are subject to the same controls as complete firearms.”
Exhibit "2"
products our client was being ordered to stop selling. Due to the vague nature of ATF’s threats,
JSD Supply has been forced to halt sales of all products from its website, so that no argument
could be made that it has not complied with ATF’s demands.
ATF’s cease-and-desist letter further invited our client to contact ATF Special Agent in
Charge Matthew Varisco with “any questions.” However, when we followed that advice, SAC
Varisco did not respond himself, but rather my phone call was returned by you (as ATF
Associate Chief Counsel) and Regina Drayton (ATF counsel from the Philadelphia field office).
As I stated at the outset of our conversation, the purpose of my call was to clarify exactly
what is being demanded of our client JSD Supply by ATF’s unclear cease-and-desist letter, and
to identify ATF’s specific objections to JSD Supply’s sale of products, so that the company
could resume operation in compliance with ATF’s demands at the earliest possible date.
First, I noted that the ATF cease-and-desist letter identified as problematic “complete kits
... which include all the components necessary to produce a functional firearm.” However, as I
explained, JSD Supply does not offer for sale any such “complete kits.”2 I do not recall that you
challenged my point.
2
As I recounted during our conversation yesterday, in December 2020, ATF took the
position that two companies –Polymer80 and Brownells.com – were no longer permitted to sell
“Buy Build Shoot” kits, comprised of an 80% incomplete receiver along with the remaining parts
to manufacture and assemble a fully finished firearm. Of course, this was a curious position for
ATF to take, and in direct contradiction to ATF’s longstanding position, as announced in
numerous letters, where the agency has repeatedly and expressly approved the sale of exactly
such a complete firearm “kit.” See, e.g., ATF letter 3311/2006-946, dated August 16, 2006,
explaining that “FTB ... previously examined ... your incomplete receiver” which “was classified
as a non-firearm. Selling this item as a ‘kit’ with blueprints, parts, etc., will not change this
classification.”
Nevertheless, after ATF expressed disapproval with the Polymer80 Buy Build Shoot kits,
manufacturers, distributors and dealers industry-wide (including our client) went to great lengths
to comply with ATF’s changed position, separating complete “kits” into separate groupings of
component parts.
ATF’s recent cease-and-desist letter to our client demonstrates that ATF has again
changed its position, and now objects to industry efforts at good faith compliance with ATF’s
revised December 2020 policy. This raises the obvious question as to why ATF made the
decision to target one corporation – our client – with a cease-and-desist letter for doing nothing
more than following standard industry practice, and in compliance with ATF’s most recently
stated December 2020 position.
If ATF had wanted to change (again) its position, it certainly had the option of issuing an
open letter to manufacturers and retailers of 80% receivers and firearm parts, giving notice of the
change – instead of targeting a single company. ATF has a great deal of experience with drafting
such Open Letters. See https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/firearms-open-letters. I hope
you would agree that forcing the shut-down of one business, under threat of criminal
prosecution, is not the proper way in which to effect an industry-wide change in ATF policy.
Second, the ATF cease-and-desist letter objected to a situation where a company offers
for sale “all the components necessary” for a customer to manufacture a privately made firearm,
whether in a single transaction or “structured transactions at different times instead of a single
sale....”3 With respect to this objection, I asked whether it would be permissible for a company
to remove a key component (such as a handgun recoil spring) from its product line, so that there
would be no way for a customer to purchase “all the components necessary” to manufacture a
firearm.
In response you stated that, in fact, it may not be permissible to remove one (or perhaps
even a few) “easily available components.” Of course, that is an entirely different position from
what the ATF cease-and-desist letter states. When I asked you to explain which firearm parts are
considered to be “easily available,” you stated that you could not provide further guidance about
specific “permutations” of combinations of parts.
Of course, virtually all of the products offered by my client are sold by numerous
(dozens, if not hundreds) of other vendors across the nation and over the Internet, and thus all
could be considered “easily available.” Thus, falling far short of providing guidance to my
client’s legitimate questions about how to comply with ATF’s demands, your response has made
ATF’s position even more unclear, and its threats to our client even more impossible to address.
Third, I then asked whether it would be permissible for JSD Supply to stop selling
unfinished 80% frames and receivers entirely, and to only sell other firearm parts including
slides, barrels, springs, triggers, etc. In other words, I asked if ATF would be satisfied if our
client offered to halt all sales of unfinished frames and receivers — the part which, once fully
manufactured, constitutes the only regulated portion of a firearm.
While we had thought that the answer to this question would be a simple and direct
“yes,” you responded that you did not have subject matter expertise and could not provide a
definitive answer. Surely, one would think that ATF’s senior lawyers should be able to answer
with some certainty the simple question whether a retailer may sell unregulated firearm parts
such as barrels, triggers, and springs – separate and apart from any 80% receiver. Otherwise, the
agency’s position would now be that it may regulate the sale “any part or parts” of a firearm,
such as those that were regulated under the repealed Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Such an
extreme position would threaten not only my client, but also many thousands of companies
across the country that sell firearm parts, 80% receivers, or some combination thereof.
Interestingly enough, both you and Ms. Drayton specifically instructed me to examine
ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, regarding the definition of “frame or receiver,” for more
3
The term “structured transaction” has no antecedent in administering the GCA or the
NFA, but rather is a term used in the financial and banking industry with regard to “structuring”
cash deposits. To our knowledge, this term first appeared at a Firearms Industry Conference
when ATF attorney James P. Vann was discussing using “structuring” charges against parts
dealers. Further, in the context of banking, if this were indeed a “structuring” issue, the customer
is the one who is responsible for the “structuring,” and not the bank (or parts seller such as JSD
Supply).
information about ATF’s position in this matter. Yet confusingly, the ATF cease-and-desist
letter to my client states exactly the opposite — advising that ATF’s recent position was taken
“notwithstanding the recently announced regulations and definitions under Final Rule 2021R-
05F,” which by its very terms does not take effect until August 24, 2022.
In other words, your reliance on the Final Rule to explain ATF’s rationale behind the JSD
Supply cease-and-desist letter makes it appear that ATF has decided to enforce the provisions of
the Final Rule against JSD Supply, more than three months before it is scheduled to take effect.
ATF routinely states, as one of its primary mission functions, to “help[] industry
members and the public determine what laws and regulations may be applicable to [a] product,
and any steps that they may need to take to be compliant with those laws and regulations.” See
NPRM in Rule 2021R-05F, 86 Fed. Reg. 27733. See also at 30829 (ATF seeks to “aid …
persons and industry members … in complying with Federal laws and regulations” so that they
may “comply with the law, and thereby reduce their risk of incurring criminal or civil penalties,
or the need for corrective actions.”).
Yet in this case, ATF’s written offer to provide answers to “any questions” from our
client has proven to be a hollow promise. Rather than providing clarity with respect to my
client’s good faith questions about how to comply with ATF’s demands, you have provided us
no options to work with the agency in order to come into compliance with ATF’s newly-minted
legal position.
During our conversation, you repeatedly stressed that you were not a “subject matter
expert” and could not “bind the ATF” as to its position. Naturally, since my client has sought
guidance as to ATF’s legal position, and the ATF cease-and-desist letter invited my client to ask
“any questions,” we believed that ATF’s senior lawyers would be able to provide guidance on
those basic questions. Since we were mistaken in that belief, perhaps this letter will provide your
office with the opportunity to find someone within the ATF who does have subject matter
expertise in the area of firearms, who can provide clarity in response to our client’s reasonable,
good-faith questions about how to comply with ATF’s demands.
Either way, ATF has no authority to arbitrarily put a company out of business through the
issuance of a vague, ambiguous, and unclear cease-and-desist letter, and then decline to provide
any clarity about what exactly the agency is demanding. In other words, federal law does not
authorize ATF unilaterally to threaten the equivalent of “capital punishment” on a business
operating in a heretofore unregulated section of the firearm industry.
Thus, on behalf of my client, I hereby request that ATF reply to this letter, in writing,
within five (5) calendar days, this time providing clear guidance as to how my client may comply
with ATF’s demands, including:
1) Whether stopping sales of various key firearm part(s), such as a handgun recoil spring,
will result in a situation where JSD Supply complies with ATF’s position because it does
not offer for sale “all the components” to manufacture a firearm.
2) If the answer question #1 is “no,” then whether stopping sales of all 80% frames and
receivers, and continuing only to sell other unregulated firearm parts including slides,
barrels, triggers, springs, etc., constitutes compliance with ATF’s letter.
Additionally, we hereby request a meeting, at your earliest opportunity, with ATF personnel
with both subject matter expertise and authority to provide definitive guidance as to what is
being demanded of our client by ATF’s cease-and-desist letter.
If ATF cannot provide timely, definitive answers to these questions, our client will have
no recourse but to pursue all available legal remedies. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
(703) 356-5070, if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Robert J. Olson
Robert J. Olson
Enclosure (ATF cease-and-desist letter)
cc: Marvin G. Richardson

Deputy Director, ATF
marvin.g.richardson@usdoj.gov
Thomas L. Chittum, III

Associate Deputy Director, ATF
thomas.chittum@atf.gov
Pamela Hicks, Esquire

Chief Counsel, ATF
pamela.hicks@atf.gov
James P. Vann, Esquire

Associate Chief Counsel, ATF
james.p.vann@atf.gov
SAC Matthew P. Varisco

Regina Drayton, Esquire
Philadelphia Field Division, ATF
PhilDiv@atf.gov
Exhibit "3"
ATF0066
Exhibit "4"
ATF Firearms Technology Branch

Technical Bulletin 14-01
UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
October 28, 2013
Unfinished “80%” AR-15 Type Receivers

There are many unfinished AR-15 type receivers being marketed as so-called “80%” receivers.
It is important to note that Federal firearms statutes and supplemental regulations do not employ
the terms “80%,” “80% finished,” or “80% complete.”
These terms are industry vernacular and are neither recognized nor defined in Federal firearms
statutes and regulations. These marketing terms are used by the industry to indicate that, in their
opinion, an unfinished receiver has not yet reached a point in the manufacturing process where it
should be classified as a “firearm” as defined in the amended Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).
As background, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include any
weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive…[and]…the frame or receiver of any such
weapon….
Unfinished AR-15 type receivers that do not meet the definition of a “firearm” are not subject to
regulation under GCA provisions; however, they are still considered defense articles per the U.S.
Munitions Import List and, therefore, require an ATF Form 6 for importation into the U.S.
The ATF Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has previously determined that an AR-15 type
receiver which has no machining of any kind performed in the area of the trigger/hammer (fire-
control) recess (or cavity) might not be classified as a firearm. Such a receiver could have all
other machining operations performed, including pivot-pin and takedown-pin hole(s) and
clearance for the takedown-pin lug, but must be completely solid and un-machined in the fire-
control recess/cavity area. We have determined that in order to be considered “completely solid
and un-machined in the fire-control recess/cavity area,” the takedown-pin lug clearance area
must be no longer than .800 inch, measured from immediately forward of the front of the buffer-
retainer hole. (see photo below)
Exhibit "5"

Page 1 of 6
UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE ATF0272 28, 2013
October
ATF Firearms Technology Branch Technical Bulletin 14-01
However, FTB has examined many “80%” AR-15 type receivers and has found that, in some
cases, items being marketed as “80%” actually meet the definition of a “firearm” as defined.
The following photos depict the most commonly encountered variations of unfinished “80%”
AR-15 type firearm receivers and are provided to assist you in determining their classification
status.

Page 2 of 6
ATF0273 28, 2013
October
Example 1
Example 2

Page 3 of 6
ATF0274 28, 2013
October
Example 3
Example 4

Page 4 of 6
ATF0275 28, 2013
October
Example 5
Example 6

Page 5 of 6
ATF0276 28, 2013
October
Example 7
Example 8
This general guidance is provided to assist ATF Special Agents and Industry Operations
Investigators, but is not meant to be used in lieu of a formal determination. FTB cannot render a
formal determination without physically examining a submitted sample.
If you encounter any variations not depicted or described in this bulletin, or, if you have any
additional questions, please contact FTB.

Page 6 of 6
ATF0277 28, 2013
October
Exhibit "6"
ATF0229
Exhibit "7"
U.S. Department of Justice
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives
Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
Mt1rtinsb11rg, WV
www.alf.gov
NOV 2 1 2017 907010 (b) (6)

3311/30775
Mr.Jordan Vinroe
JSD Supply
106 Poplar Lane
Porters ville, PA 16051
Dear Mr. Vinroe:
This refers to your correspondence to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF), Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB), which accompanied your
submitted sample of one metal Pre-Cursor" SIG SAUER P320 pistol frame. Specifically, you
0
requested an evaluation and classification for this sample.
As background, the amended Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 92l(a)(3), defines the term
"firearm" to include any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be
readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive ... [and] ... theframe or
receiver of any such weapon ....
Note: FT/SB uses the following terms to describe certain items:
The rem, "receiver-blank" is used to describe forgings, castings, or machined bodies (defense
articles) such as AR-15 receiver castings, AK receiver flats, etc. in various stages of
folding/machining which are not classified as firearms.
The term "illcomplete receiver" is used to describe a receiver which may be classified as a
fireami, but is not completely machined for use as afimctionalfirearm receiver.
Please note that any receiver-casting or receiver-blank that has been finished to the point at
which it can be recognized as a firearm frame or receiver is a "firearm."
Exhibit "8"
5 RIP
-2-
Ms. Jordan Vinroe
With respect to markings, please note that 27 CFR § 478.92 states the following:
.. . each licensed manufacturer or licensed importer of any fireann manufactured or imported

shall legibly identify each suchfireann by engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or
othenvise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped (impressed) or placed
011 the frame or receiver thereof in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered,
or removed, an individual serial number not duplicating any serial number placed by the
111a11ufacfllrer or importer 011 any other firearm, and by engraving, casting, stamping
(impressing), or othenvise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped
(impressed), or placed on the frame or receiver, or barrel thereof in a manner not susceptible of
being readily obliterated, altered or removed, the model if such designation has been made; the
caliber or gauge; the name (or recognized abbreviation of same) of the manufaclllrer and also,
when applicable, of the importer; in the case of a domestically made firearm, the city and State
(or recognized abbreviation thereof) wherein the licensed manufacturer maillfains its place of
business; and in the case of an imported firearm, the name of the country in which mamifactured
and the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) of the importer.
Furthermore, for firearms manufactured or imported on and after January 30, 2002, the
engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of the serial number must be to a minimum depth of
.003 inch and a minimum height of 1/16 inch. All other markings must be of a minimum depth
of .003 inch.
Results of the FfISB examination of the submitted item, fully identified below, is as follows:
Folded SIG SAUER, Model P320, semiautomatic pistol frame.
• Overall Length - 4-5/16 inches.
• Height - 1-1/8 inch.
• Frame Construction - Alloy 316 (CF8M).
Right side view
Left side view
6 RIF
-3-
Ms. Jordan Vinroe
The sample is already formed into shape to drop into place; however, the rails have not been
made into the final position for use in a completed firearm. The sample is lacking all holes for
the following parts: the trigger pin hole, trigger stop pin, sear housing roll pin, sear pivot pin,
takedown lever, slide catch lever pin, and safety lever pin.
The submitted sample has not reached a point in the manufacturing process that it would be
classified as a "firearm" as defined by the GCA.
The sample will be returned with the pre-paid shipping label you provided.
We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your request for an evaluation. If we can be
of any further assistance, please contact us.
(b) (6)incerely yours,
(b) (6)
Michael R. Curtis
Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
7 RIP
Exhibit "9"
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Martinsburg. WV 2540l so»os ARI

www.atf gov 3311/2006-946
AUG 1 6 2006
(b) (6)
{IG
This refers to your follow-up correspondence dated July 20, 2006, to the Firearms Technology
Branch (FTB), ATF, regarding the inclusion of a bolt assembly and blueprints, to be sold in a
package along with an incomplete 10/22 Magnum-type receiver (refer to FTB letter #3311/2006-
795). You have enclosed a sample bolt assembly and blueprints, which can be used to complete
your 10/22M-type receiver into a firearm.
As you are aware, your incomplete receiver was previously examined by this Branch and was
classified as a non-firearm. Selling this item as a "kit" with blueprints, parts, etc., will not
change this classification.
We thank you for your inquiry, along with the submitted items, and trust that the foregoing has
been responsive.
Sincerely yours,
=7-. _,1--
Sterling Nixon
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Exhibit "10"
Exhibit "11"
Exhibit "12"
Exhibit "13"
r
l Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Marimbng, W 25405
907010t
.1GI'
FEB 2 0 2018 3311/308032
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
This is in reference to your correspondence, with enclosed samples, to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Industry
Services Branch (FTISB). In your letter, you asked for a classification of a Glock-type
"PF940V2 Blank" on behalf of your client, Polymer 80 Incorporated (see enclosed
photos). Specifically, you wish to know if this item would be classified as a "firearm"
under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). You state that, "we believe the enclosed item
is not a firearm",
For your reference in this matter, the amended Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), I8
U.S.C. $ 921(a)63), defines the term "firearm" to include any weapon (including a
starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive...[and]...the frame or receiver of any such weapon...
Also, 27 CFR $ 478.11 defines "firearm frame or receiver". That part of a firear
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.
Also, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. $ 921(a)(29), defines "handgun" to include "a firearm which
has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and (BJ
any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be
assembled.
In addition, 27 CFR 5 478.I 1 defines a "pistol" to mean "a weapon originally designed,
made and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
Exhibit "14"
(b) (6) Page 2
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with,
the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and
extending below the line of the bore(s)."
During the examination of your sample "PF940V2", FTISB personnel found that the
following machining operations or design features present or completed:
I. Trigger slot.
2. Capable of accepting Glock 17 trigger mechanism housing.
3. Capable of accepting Glock I7 trigger bar.
4. Magazine well.
5. Magazine catch.
6. Accessory rail.
7. Slide-stop lever recess.
8. Magazine catch spring recess.
9. Metal embedded plate in dust cover.
Machining operations or design features not yet present or completed:
1. Trigger-pin hole machined or indexed.

2. Trigger mechanism housing pin machined or indexed.
3. Locking block-pin hole machined or indexed.
4. Devoid of front or rear frame rails.
5. Barrel seat machined or formed.
6. Incapable of accepting Glock locking-block.
It is clear from the above information provided in your correspondence that the submitted
sample is only a component used in the assembly of an end-item. Research conducted by
FTISB has disclosed that a Polymer 80 Model PF940V2 is being marketed at
www.polymer80.com, as depicted in screenshots below:
• -
.
' .
,-
-
$160.00
1iiiifiE
EE ·
I 2ISL I
(b) (6) Page 3
Image of Polymer 80 Model PF940V2 80%Standard Pistol Frame Kit obtained from
www.polymer80.com
FTISB also noted the following markings on the submitted sampJe:
• PF40V2
• MADEINUSA
• POLYMER8O, INC.
• DAYTON,NV
• P80
The following is a description from Polymer 80's website that describes the item and
what is included with the purchase of the Polymer 80 Model PF940V2 80% Standard
Pistol Frame Kit:
• The PF940v2TM its compatible with components for 3-pin 9mm G17, 34, 17L;
.40$&W G22, 35, 24; and .357Sig G31.
• Next Generation Ergonomics and Features
• High-Strength Reinforced Polymer Construction
• The ReadyMod® frame features a blank grip design that is ready for
stippling and other grip customization.
• Picatlnny/STANAG Compliant Accessory Rail
• Blank Serialization Plate
• Stainless Steel Locking Block Rail System (LBRST9)
• Stainless Steel Drop-In Rear Rail Module (RRMTN)
• Hardened Pins for LBRSTM and RRMIM
• Complete Finishing Jig, Drill bits and End Mill Included
Clearly the submitted sample is simply a component of a larger product. In your

correspondence, you reference that "the PF940V2 is missing critical operations necessary
to complete the product".
(b) (6) Page 4
Please note, the frame or receiver of a firearm is a firearm as defined in GCA, 18 U.S.C.
$ 921(a)63)B), and any combination of parts from which a handgun, as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 921(a)(29), can be assembled is also a firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. §
921(a63).
FTISB will not render a classification on a partial product submission. ln order to receive
an evaluation and classification of your product, please submit the complete Polymer 80
Model PF940V2 80% Standard Pistol Frame Kil being marketed by your client
We caution that these findings are based on the sample as submitted. If the design.
dimensions, configuration, method of operation, or materials used were changed, our
determination would be subject to review. The submitted sample will be returned to you
under a separate cover utilizing FEDEX account numbe (b) (6)
We thank you for your inquiry and trust the foregoing has been responsive co your
evaluation request.
Sincerely yours,
400± c
Michael R. Curtis
Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
Enclosure
Polymer 80 PF940V2
Polymer 80 PF940V2
Polymer 80 PF940V2
Polymer 80 PF940V2
AO 106 (Rev 04/10) Application for a Search Warrant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT Co_FILED

tr mhe DEC -3 2020
District of Nevada TRATE JUDGE
us.'Er iivi~i
DIS' DEPUTY
In the Matter of the Search of
) BY
(Briefly describe the property to be searched )
or identify the person by name and address) 3:20-mj-123-WGC
) Case No.
The business and Federal Firearms Licensee ("FFL") )
known as POL YMER80, Inc. (POLYMER80"), which is )
located at 134 Lakes Blvd, Dayton, NV 89403 )
APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT

I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property (identify the person or describe the
property to_be_searched gndgive,its.location):,, ..
Ihe business and Fed~ral Fire~rrs Licensee ("FFL") known as POLYMER80, Inc. ("POLYMER80"), which is located at
134 Lakes Blvd, Dayton, as further described in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
located in the District of Nevada ,there is now concealed (identify the
----------
person or describe the property to be seized);
See Attachment B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 4I(c) is (check one or more):
fevidence of a crime;
\contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime;
0 a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
The search is related to a violation of:

Code Section Offense Description
18 USC $ 922(a)(2) Shipment or Transport of a Firearm by a Federal Firearms Licensee ("FFL") to a
and other offenses Non-FFL in Interstate or Foreign Commerce and other offenses listed in
listed in Attachment B Attachment B
The application is based on these facts:
See Affidavit of ATF Special Agent Tolliver Hart, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
f continued on the attached sheet.

0 Delayed notice of days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: ) is requested
under 18 U.S.C. § 3I03a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet.
4.#/A- Applicant 's signature
Tolliver Hart, ATF Special Agent

Printed name and title
Subscribed and sworn to before me

by reliable electronic means on:
I but G.(l6-
Pas-
p/ sk.
? Dcalw.20 26
%,
Judge 's signature
and state: Reno, Nevada WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Printed name and title
Exhibit "15"
rear rails, that there could be a burr on the metal insert where
the trigger bar meets it, or the part was mis-stamped.
POLYMER80 advised the presenter that a quick fix was to file off
the burr, and failing that, POLYMER80 could send a replacement
part. According to the video, POLYMER80 also advised that the
metal arm of the part might be bent too far inward, in which
case its inner edge should be filed.
64. Based on this video, SSA Hamilton determined that the
issue appeared to be a quality control matter for the kit he
received, rather than a design flaw of the kits generally. SSA
Hamilton followed the instructions in the video and modified the
part. After re-installing all the components into the frame,
SSA Hamilton resumed the building of the kit, and the recording,
at approximately 2:29 p.m. SSA Hamilton then completed the
firearm and successfully test-fired twice using 9mm caliber
ammunition that had the projectile and propellant removed. SSA
Hamilton ceased the assembly at approximately 2:34 p.m.
65. SSA Hamilton determined that the purchased POLYMER8O
model PF940C Buy Build Shoot Kit is a "firearm" as that term is
defined under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), as a weapon designed to, or
that may readily be converted to, expel a projectile by the
action of an explosive.6 In addition, SSA Hamilton determined
that the purchased POLYMER80 model PF940C Buy Build Shoot Kit is
also a "handgun" as that term is defined under 18 U.S.C. §
6
ATF Chief Counsel has also determined that the Buy Build
Shoot kits are, as a matter of law, firearms pursuant to 18
u.s.c. § 921(a) (3).
31
921(a)(29) as a combination of parts from which a firearm having
a short stock and designed to be held and fired by the use of a
single hand can be assembled. The firearm is pictured as

follows:
F. Undercover Purchase and Assembly of POLYMERB0 Buy

Build Shoot Kit by Confidential Informant
66. On or about March 3, 2020, a different ATF UC
purchased two Buy Build Shoot Kits from POLYMER8O's website.
The UC used the same procedures as SSA Hamilton to purchase the
kits, as described above. The UC purchased the same models and
colors as SSA Hamilton, one "P80 Buy Build Shoot™ kit PF940v2 -
10 Round Magazine" in black color and one "P80 Buy Build ShootTw
kit PF9AOC - 10 Round Magazine" in flat dark earth color. The
UC obtained the kits in Riverside County, California on or about

June 16, 2020. The package shipping label showed the SUBJECT
32
Exhibit "16"
Exhibit "17"
Exhibit "18"
Exhibit "19"
14 FEDERAL FIREARMS AMENDMENTS OF 1966
Paragraph (1)
The definition of t.he tenn "person" in paragraph (1) of the bill is
unclumged from t.he exiRting l~w (15 U.S.C. 901 (1)).
Paragraph (2)
Pnragraph (2) of section 1 of the bill adds a new definition "State"
to ~implify and clarify ln.t.er provi~:~ions of the bill and the existing law.
Tho Canal Zone is included in the definition. Previously it was ex-
cluded. Also included are the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samou., the principal Com-
monwealth and possessions of the United States.
Paragraph (9)
Parngraph (:J} restates the existing definition of "interstate or
foreign commeree" (15 U.S.C . 901 (2)) . However, language has been
removed thn.t has been defined in paragraph (2) above.
Paragraph (4}
Pt\rngraph (4) re~tates the definition of " firearm" and revises it to
exclude from the lLct antique fireurms made in 1898 or earlier. Also
mufflers tLn<l Hilencers for fireo.rmM arc removed from t.he definition.
The year 1898 wns selected as tho ucutoff" date on the basis of
te:-~timony presented to Congress by sovertt.l gun collectors organiza-
tiom~ tLnd to be t!onsistent with the reguln.tion:-~ on importation of
firctt.rrns issued by the Department of State pursuant to section 414 of
the Muttml Security Act of 1954.
M ufllcrs and silencers for firett.rmH n.ro excluded from coverage since
these items u.re included presently in the National Firearms Act
(Uh. 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954). This act provides for
heaa.vy t.rnnsfer ttl.xes and registrnt.ion of all such items.
Also exducled from t.he presen t definition of the term l'fireu.rm" is
11
n.ny part or p,nrt~" uf n. firearm . Experie11<~e in the administration of
t.hc .Ic,edero.l I• iren.rm~ A<~t has indicated thn.t it is irnpraetical to treat
each small part u.s if it were u. firearm. The revised definition sub-
s titutes the words " frame or receiver" for the words "any par t or
part.q,''
Added to t.he t.erm "firennn" are weapons which "may be readily
converted to" a fireann. The purpose of this addition 1s to include
specifically amy Htu.rter gun de~ugncd for use with blank ammunition
which will or which may be readily <~onverted to OXJ?el a projectile or
>rojectiles by tho action of an explosive. Such so-<~alled starter pistols
l1avo been found to ben matter of serious concern to lo.w enforcement
officers.
Paragraph (6)
The defmition of the t.em1 "hnndgun" in paragraph (5) is o. new
provision. 'l'his definition is necessary because of later provisions
of tho bill which ho.ve application solely to tbe~e firearms. There is
no intentio11 that handguns be exempted from any of the other pro-
vision of t.he bill since a handgun is a fireann within the meaning of
paragraph (4) above. .
The tenn include.'i "pistols/' "revolvers, and "any other weapons
originall~ designed to oe firea by the use of a single hand" which are
made to be fired by the use of a single hand and which are designed to
fire or aro capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition.
Exhibit "20"
ATF0262
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

NOT AN LLC d/b/a JSD SUPPLY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND
EXPLOSIVES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and
GARY M. RESTAINO AS THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF ATF
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Butler County of Residence of First Listed Defendant District of Columbia
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
David J. Berardinelli, Esq.
436 Seventh Ave, 30th Floor, Pittsburgh PA 15219
412-227-3100
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 895 Freedom of Information
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Procedure
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 950 Constitutionality of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. N/A JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
05/18/2022 s/ David J. Berardinelli
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44AREVISED June, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THIS CASE DESIGNATION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED
PART A
This case belongs on the ( Erie Johnstown Pittsburgh) calendar.
1. ERIE CALENDAR - If
cause of action arose in the counties of Crawford, Elk, Erie,
Forest, McKean. Venang or Warren, OR any plaintiff or defendant resides in one of said
counties.
2. JOHNSTOWN CALENDAR - If cause of action arose in the counties of Bedford, Blair,
Cambria, Clearfield or Somerset OR any plaintiff or defendant resides in one of
said counties.
3. Complete if on ERIE CALENDAR: I certify that the cause of action arose in

County and that the resides in County.
4. Complete if on JOHNSTOWN CALENDAR: I certify that the cause of action arose in

County and that the resides in County.
PART B (You are to check ONE of the following)

1. This case is related to Number . Short Caption .
2. This case is not related to a pending or terminated case.
DEFINlTIONS OF RELATED CASES:

CIVIL: Civil cases are deemed related when a case filed relates to property included in
another suit or involves the same issues of fact or it grows out of the same transactions
as another suit or involves the validity or infringement of a patent involved in another
suit EMINENT DOMAIN: Cases in contiguous closely located groups and in common ownership
groups which will lend themselves to consolidation for trial shall be deemed related.
HABEAS CORPUS & CIVIL RIGHTS: All habeas corpus petitions filed by the same individual
shall be deemed related. All pro se Civil Rights actions by the same individual shall be
deemed related.
PARTC
I. CIVIL CATEGORY ( applicable category).
1. Antitrust and Securities Act Cases
2. Labor-Management Relations
3. Habeas corpus
4. Civil Rights
5. Patent, Copyright, and Trademark
6. Eminent Domain
7. All other federal question cases
8. All personal and property damage tort cases, including maritime, FELA,
Jones Act, Motor vehicle, products liability, assault, defamation, malicious
prosecution, and false arrest
9. Insurance indemnity, contract and other diversity cases.
10. Government Collection Cases (shall include HEW Student Loans (Education),
V A 0verpayment, Overpayment of Social Security, Enlistment
Overpayment (Army, Navy, etc.), HUD Loans, GAO Loans (Misc. Types),
Mortgage Foreclosures, SBA Loans, Civil Penalties and Coal Mine
Penalty and Reclamation Fees.)
I certify that to the best of my knowledge the entries on this Case Designation
Sheet are true and correct
s/ David J. Berardinelli
Date: 5/18/2022
ATTORNEY AT LAW
NOTE: ALL SECTIONS OF BOTH FORMS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE CASE CAN BE PROCESSED.
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12) Case 2:05-mc-02025 Document 537-21 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 3
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

JSD Supply Files Temporary Restraining Order Against ATF May 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JSD Supply Files Temporary Restraining Order Against ATF May 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:05-mc-02025 Document 537 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 45

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOT AN LLC d/b/a/ JSD SUPPLY, Case No.___________

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

by federal law and completely outside ATF’s authority to control.

way enforcing the provisions of its C&D Order against Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff respectfully seeks a hearing on its request for a temporary restraining

order and/or preliminary injunction as soon as possible. Time is of the essence.

provided notice of the filings by phone.

5. Plaintiff Not an LLC d/b/a JSD Supply, is a Pennsylvania limited liability

6. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an executive agency within the

7. Defendant Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) is a

8. Defendant Gary M. Restaino is the Acting Director of ATF pursuant to a

ATF’s action challenged herein.1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706.

See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

a licensed to do so from, the Secretary.” 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).

years, or both…” 18 U.S.C. § 924(a).

frame or receiver can be assembled into a functional firearm.

grant of statutory authority.

unregulated by the ATF.

firearm parts used in the assembly process.

position against this single retailer.

which it was entrusted by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

ATF’s Cease-and-Desist Order to JSD Supply, Dated May 9, 2022

on the door of Plaintiff JSD Supply.

three days prior, or Monday, May 9, 2022.

company, JSD Supply….”

Jigs, and Gun Parts Kits.”

in one or multiple transactions.”

or a single transaction in order to be considered a firearm.” Emphasis added.

after the date of ATF’s C&D Order).

take three separate actions.

without a license.” Id. at 2.

firearm, whether in a single transaction or in multiple structured transactions.”

Agent in Charge, Philadelphia Field Division, Matthew P. Varisco….”

ATF’s C&D Order Provided No Specific Instructions or Guidance

shutting down all retail sales, as Plaintiff has done.

necessary to produce a functional firearm” that Plaintiff is alleged to sell.

firearm can be manufactured and them assembled.

specific “products,” “parts,” or “components.”

“structured” transactions, and avoid unknowingly transferring various unclear combinations of

“products,” “parts,” or “components” to a single person.

55. Of course, even if the notion of a “structured” transaction is now to be imported

more parts sellers.

57. An additional complexity is created because many of Plaintiff’s customers have

then be manufactured and assembled.

Plaintiff’s Attempts to Clarify ATF’s Vague C&D Order

novel, as well as vague and unclear, demands.

a substantial loss of gross and net income to Plaintiff.

demands might be.

attorney in ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division.

Order is recounted in Plaintiff’s letter to ATF. Exhibit “2.”

as referenced in ATF’s C&D Order. Id. at 2.

66. ATF did not dispute this. Id.

functional firearm….” Id. at 3.

68. ATF’s representatives declined to provide confirmation or guidance on this issue.

position, it would seem, continues to evolve.

such as barrels, springs, triggers, etc. Id. at 3.

limited, clearly lawful basis.

about how to comply with the agency’s C&D Order.

73. ATF confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s letter on May 14, 2022.