Getz v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.

1

NATHANIEL GETZ, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SUZANNE FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff, v. STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC., Defendant

No. 3:23-cv-1338 (RNC)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 25, 2024

RULING AND ORDER

ROBERT N. CHATIGNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case arises from a mass shooting at a supermarket in Boulder Colorado, on March 22, 2021, that resulted in the deaths of ten people, including Suzanne Fountain, a Colorado resident. Plaintiff Nathaniel Getz, the executor of Ms. Fountain's estate, filed the case in state court against defendant Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (“Ruger”), a Connecticut-based corporation, which manufactured and sold the weapon used in the shooting, a Ruger AR-556 Pistol with an SBA3 stabilizing brace manufactured by non-party SB Tactical. The claims in the amended complaint are brought pursuant to Connecticut's wrongful death statute, Conn Gen. Stat. § 52-555, and are predicated on alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a), and Connecticut common law. The gravamen of the claims is that Ruger assembled and marketed this weapon as a “pistol” for regulatory purposes, although the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarded it as a “short-barreled rifle” under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”)^[1]and Gun Control Act (“GCA”),^[2]which greatly restrict civilian access to “short-barreled rifles,” defined as weapons that have a “barrel length [of] less than 16 inches” and are “designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3)-(4), (c).^[3]The amended complaint alleges that Ruger thereby enabled the Boulder gunman to acquire a short-barreled rifle while evading strict federal limits on civilian access to this type of military-grade weapon and that its violation of the NFA and GCA was a substantial factor in causing the death of Ms. Fountain.

Following removal of the case by the defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), the plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. Under the substantial federal question doctrine, a federal issue embedded in a state-law claim may be sufficiently important to bring a case within the scope of removal jurisdiction provided by § 1441(b).^[4]The plaintiff contends that the need to determine whether the defendant's firearm was intended to be fired from the shoulder, so as to constitute a “short-barreled rifle” under the NFA, is an issue of the defendant's subjective intent that does not support removal.^[5]In response, the defendant relies heavily on the disputed status of a final rule published last year by the ATF setting forth criteria for determining whether a pistol with a stabilizing brace constitutes a short-barreled rifle because it is designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder.^[6]The Final Rule is currently being challenged in federal court actions brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Mock v. Garland, 75 F.4th 563, 578 (5th Cir. 2023)(reversing district court's denial of preliminary injunction against implementation of the Final Rule), on remand, Mock v. Garland, No. 4:23-cv-95, 2023 WL 6457920 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2023)(granting preliminary injunction on the ground that the Final Rule fails the APA's ”logical-outgrowth test” requiring that it be a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule previously published for public comment). The defendant argues that in order to determine whether it intended its AR-556 Pistol with an SBA3 brace to be fired from the shoulder within the meaning of the NFA and GCA, it is first necessary to decide whether to adopt the “approach” taken by the ATF in the Final Rule, and that this is an issue of sufficient importance to federal firearms regulation generally to warrant a federal forum. I conclude that the case is not removable and grant the motion to remand.

I.

Since its enactment in 1934, the NFA has regulated short-barreled rifles because they have the firepower of a rifle but can be concealed and manipulated more easily than an ordinary rifle making them particularly useful to violent criminals.^[7]When Congress amended the NFA in 1968, it made a finding that “short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection[.]” Sen. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28 (1968). Short-barreled rifles are also regulated under the GCA.^[8]

Under the NFA, manufacturers must register each short-barreled rifle they produce in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”), and before transferring a short-barreled rifle to any individual or entity must file a transfer application with the ATF and obtain its approval of the transfer. 26 U.S.C. § 5812; 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.84-479.87; 479.101 479.103. If a manufacturer fails to register and transfer a short-barreled rifle in compliance with the NFA, the firearm is subject to seizure and forfeiture, and the manufacturer is subject to criminal penalties. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5871, 5872.

Civilian purchasers of short-barreled rifles are also subject to strict federal regulations. To acquire a short-barreled rifle, a prospective purchaser must apply to the ATF for approval of the purchase and, if approval is given, register the transfer in the NFRTR. The application process requires purchasers to submit a completed application form along with passport photos and fingerprint cards, pay a special tax, notify local law enforcement officials and undergo a background check. No purchase can be completed - and no transfer can occur - until the ATF's approval is received.

II.

The amended complaint makes detailed allegations concerning Ruger's conduct and intent, and that of SB Tactical, many on the basis of “information and belief.” The allegations may or may not be true. But the following allegations are assumed to be true for purposes of ruling on the motion to remand.

Beginning in the Spring of 2019, Ruger knowingly designed, manufactured and marketed AR-556 Pistols configured with SB Tactical's SBA3 brace in order “to cater to civilian consumer demand for short-barreled rifles available outside the rigorous, expensive, and time-consuming NFA approval process.” An AR-556 Pistol equipped with an SBA3 Brace meets the specifications for a short-barreled rifle set forth in the NFA because its barrel is less than 16 inches long, and it is designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Ruger no longer sells this weapon, but hundreds of thousands are in circulation.

An AR-556 Pistol with an SBA3 brace is similar in design and function to Ruger's AR-556 Rifle, an AR-15-style rifle. Both are semi-automatic, weigh about the same, use rifle-caliber ammunition and are designed for “shouldering,” which enables the user “to direct the rifle's firepower more accurately and better manage the rifle's recoil.” The main difference between the two is the length of the barrel. The barrels of AR-556 Pistols range from 9.5 to 10.5 inches, depending on the model, whereas the barrels of AR-556 Rifles all exceed 16 inches. Because of the difference in barrel length, an AR-556 Pistol equipped with an SBA3 brace offers the “devastating firepower” of an AR-15-style rifle with the “concealability and maneuverability” of smaller guns.

Ruger's AR-556 Pistols with SBA3 braces are “nearduplicates” of short-barreled rifles that Ruger manufactured for the law enforcement market, the AR-556 MPR. The law enforcement-only rifles, which are properly labeled and registered as short-barreled rifles by Ruger, and the AR-556 Pistols with SBA3 braces, which are not, “share near-identical specifications.”^[9]

The events in Boulder can be traced to a decision by the ATF in 2012, in response to a request by SB Tactical, that a rearward attachment to a pistol would not alter the pistol's classification under the NFA. SB Tactical represented that the attachment it submitted for the ATF's review - a rudimentary device to be secured to the user's wrist by Velcro straps -would serve as an aid to one-handed firing of handguns by persons with disabilities.

In retrospect, the ATF's decision opened the door to what quickly became a thriving market for shortbarreled rifles that could be bought and sold like basic shotguns. The SBA3 brace, which was released to the market in 2018, resembles a conventional shoulder stock in size, shape and function. It bears no resemblance to the 2012 device for use with Velcro straps and functions poorly, if at all, as a stabilizing brace to support one-handed firing of 5.6 pound or heavier gun, such as the AR-556 Pistol. SB Tactical intended the SBA3 brace to be used to shoulder AR-15-style “pistols” while evading NFA registration of what would otherwise be short-barreled rifles.

In July 2018, ATF sent SB Tactical a cease-and-desist letter, instructing it to stop marketing as “ATF Compliant” several of its stabilizing brace models, including the SBA3, which had not been submitted for ATF evaluation. The letter stated that the ATF did “not approve ‘stabilizing braces' which are similar or based off shoulder stock designs.” Nonetheless, Ruger and SB Tactical proceeded to work together to bring to the civilian market Ruger's AR-556 Pistol with the SBA3 brace.

In May 2019, SB Tactical submitted to the ATF for review and classification a Ruger AR-556 Pistol with an SBA3 brace in a nearly identical configuration to the one used by the Boulder gunman. In March 2020, the ATF responded with a 26-page letter containing a detailed review and analysis of the objective design features of the combination. The ATF concluded that the weapon was “properly classified as a ‘short-barreled rifle.'” The letter did not constitute final agency action, but it...