MoxyDave
27 March 2014, 20:30
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm
On Aug. 2, 2012, Innovator Enterprises Inc. asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives to provide a classification letter for their new Stabilizer Brake.
A "classification letter" from the ATF is what determines if the item is covered under the NFA and must be taxed and managed accordingly.
ATF decided that the device was a silencer. Innovator then sued the agency in the federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to overturn the agency's determination.
ATF decided based on a subset of 6 characteristics that are allegedly common to 'known silencers' instead of actually testing the device in the real world.
"Even if this general approach of relying 'solely' on physical characteristics were sound, the agency did not perform a scientific or rigorous comparison of physical characteristics," the ruling states.
Federal Judge Bates remanded the matter back to the ATF for further review. He also granted Innovator summary judgment on its claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agency's action must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious because of the agency's failure to "articulate a satisfactory explanation" and "examine the relevant data" in classifying Innovator's Stabilizer Brake as a "firearm silencer."
On Aug. 2, 2012, Innovator Enterprises Inc. asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives to provide a classification letter for their new Stabilizer Brake.
A "classification letter" from the ATF is what determines if the item is covered under the NFA and must be taxed and managed accordingly.
ATF decided that the device was a silencer. Innovator then sued the agency in the federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to overturn the agency's determination.
ATF decided based on a subset of 6 characteristics that are allegedly common to 'known silencers' instead of actually testing the device in the real world.
"Even if this general approach of relying 'solely' on physical characteristics were sound, the agency did not perform a scientific or rigorous comparison of physical characteristics," the ruling states.
Federal Judge Bates remanded the matter back to the ATF for further review. He also granted Innovator summary judgment on its claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agency's action must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious because of the agency's failure to "articulate a satisfactory explanation" and "examine the relevant data" in classifying Innovator's Stabilizer Brake as a "firearm silencer."