SAN ANGELO, Texas — Recent filings in the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF case, invalidating portions of the NFA, show a heightened level of tension between the plaintiffs, specifically nine states, and the Department of Justice as deadlines loom to answer key questions.
On October 1, the DOJ asked for a 10-day extension to the October 2 deadline to respond to a previous request to clarify the injunction, an extension that nine states roundly opposed, according to the Justice Department filing:
The states informed defendants that they oppose the modest extension that defendants request, claiming that their residents would be prejudiced by any delay in this Court’s clarification of its injunction. But the states did not explain why, in their view, the need for the Court’s clarification is so urgent that it cannot accommodate a ten-day extension of defendants’ response, but was not so urgent that the states waited 37 days before seeking this clarification.
The ATF claims it needs more time to consider its response based on two developments: the Solicitor General’s September 24 letter to Congress stating that the DOJ will not appeal the case, and the ATF’s own forthcoming guidance.
While the DOJ points to the supposed silence of the states, ATF Director Robert Cekada promised on August 28 that guidance was forthcoming. More than a month has passed since that promise was made, with both no guidance and simultaneously thousands of transfers taking place each day across the nation, potentially widening a rift between any future guidance and proper compliance (see related story).
The motion (and the September 11 request for clarification) shines additional light on disagreement between the two parties over both the scope of the injunction and related responsibilities.
The September 11 motion by the states initially understates the situation:
…it became clear that the respective parties understand the scope and requirements of the Order in different ways.
It goes on to add that, “ATF stated its belief that it is not required to determine whether any individual is covered by the Court’s injunction,” adding, “ATF now tells them to consult an attorney to determine for themselves whether they are covered by the Court’s Order.”
ATF’s guidance to “consult an attorney” is tone-deaf in an era when politicized and weaponized government agencies have jailed people for owning firearm replicas and toys. See our interview with Tate Adamiak.
We will continue to follow this story.
