No. 19-1298
444444444444444444444444
In the United States Court of Appealsfor the Sixth Circuit
________________ G
UN
O
WNERS OF
A
MERICA
,
I
NC
.,
G
UN
O
WNERS
F
OUNDATION
,
V
IRGINIA
C
ITIZENS
D
EFENSE
L
EAGUE
,
M
ATT
W
ATKINS
,
T
IM
H
ARMSEN
,
R
ACHEL
M
ALONE
,Plaintiffs-Appellants,G
UN
O
WNERS OF
C
ALIFORNIA
,
I
NC
.,Movant,v.M
ERRICK
B.
G
ARLAND
, U.S. Attorney General, in his official capacity as AttorneyGeneral
of the United States,
U.S.
D
EPARTMENT OF
J
USTICE
,
B
UREAU OF
A
LCOHOL
,
T
OBACCO
,
F
IREARMS AND
E
XPLOSIVES
,
R
EGINA
L
OMBARDO
, in her official capacity as Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms, andExplosives,Defendants-Appellees. ________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
________________
APPELLANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
________________ K
ERRY
L.
M
ORGAN
R
OBERT
J.
O
LSON
*P
ENTIUK
,
C
OUVREUR
&
K
OBILJAK
,
P.C.W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
2915 Biddle Avenue, Suite 200J
EREMIAH
L.
M
ORGAN
Wyandotte, Michigan 48192W
ILLIAM
J.
O
LSON
,
P.C.(734) 281-7100370 Maple Avenue W., Suite 4Vienna, Virginia 22180-5615(703) 356-5070Counsel for Appellants*Attorney of Record July 26, 2021
444444444444444444444444
Case: 19-1298 Document: 62 Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTable of Authorities................................................iiiStatement.........................................................1I.
Chevron
Deference Does Not Apply In This Case....................1A.
Chevron
Does Not Apply Because the Statute Is Not Ambiguous...1B.
Chevron
Does Not Apply Because This Is a Criminal Statute......7C.A President’s Political Objectives Do Not Receive
Chevron
Deference...............................................9D.Congress Did Not Delegate to ATF the Authority to Define or Redefine the Term “Machinegun”...........................12E.Even if the Statute Were Ambiguous, Then It Is UnconstitutionallyVague. Alternatively, the Rule of Lenity Applies..............14II.This Court May Not Apply
Chevron
Deference, Because the GovernmentHas Repeatedly and Expressly Waived It..........................17III.Deference Here Will Only Further Embolden ATF’s Lawless Actions...22CONCLUSION....................................................24Certificate of ComplianceCertificate of Service
ii
Case: 19-1298 Document: 62 Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
STATUTES
5 U.S.C. Section 706...............................................2518 U.S.C. Section 921.............................................1, 718 U.S.C. Section 922...............................................718 U.S.C. Section 924...............................................718 U.S.C. Section 926..............................................1326 U.S.C. Section 5845..............................................726 U.S.C. Section 7801.............................................1426 U.S.C. Section 7805.............................................13
REGULATIONS
27 C.F.R. Section 478.11.........................................10, 11
CASES
Abramski v. United States
, 573 U.S. 169 (2014).......................7, 8, 9
Aposhian v. Barr
, 958 F.3d 969 (10
th
Cir. 2020)....................2,
passim Aposhian v. Wilkinson
, 989 F.3d 890 (10
th
Cir. 2021)...................14, 15
Atrium Med. Ctr. v. United States HHS
, 766 F.3d 560 (6
th
Cir. 2014)..........9
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or.
, 515 U.S. 687 (1995).........................................9, 16
iii
Case: 19-1298 Document: 62 Filed: 07/26/2021 Page: 3