Paul Viriyapanthu v. Thomas Brandon
686 F. App'x 390
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Viriyapanthu possessed several M-16 parts and wrote to ATF in 2013; ATF threatened prosecution if he did not surrender them. The court for purposes of the appeal assumed those parts constituted one or more "machineguns" under the NFA.
- He sued the Acting ATF Director seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). He appealed.
- Central statutory provision at issue: 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (ban on transfer and possession of machineguns), with related NFA registration requirements (26 U.S.C. and 27 C.F.R. rules) implicated.
- Viriyapanthu argued his possession fell within statutory exceptions (government authorization or ‘‘grandfather’’ registration) and raised a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination challenge to registration/interaction with ATF. He also sought judicial notice of documents submitted with his reply.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that the parts were machineguns and evaluated statutory exceptions, Commerce Clause authority, the Fifth Amendment claim (raised on appeal), and the motion for judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether possession falls within §922(o) exceptions (government authorization) | Viriyapanthu claimed his receipt/possession were authorized or otherwise exempt | ATF argued transfers did not comply with NFA/regulatory clearance and no alternative authorization alleged | Not exempt: no government authorization shown; §922(o)(2)(A) does not convert possession ban into a nonprosecution rule for government-owned guns |
| Whether grandfather exception applies (lawful possession/registration) | Viriyapanthu asserted grandfathering permits his possession | ATF: he is not in lawful possession because the machinegun cannot be registered to him under statutes | Not applicable: he is not lawfully possessed or registered, so grandfather exception fails |
| Whether applying §922(o)(1) to him exceeds Commerce Clause power | Viriyapanthu implied overreach/limits on Congress's commerce power | ATF: nationwide regulatory scheme and interstate market for machineguns justify regulation under Commerce Clause | Valid: possession ban fits within comprehensive interstate firearms regulatory regime and rational basis that aggregate possession could affect interstate commerce |
| Whether Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination bars requiring registration or surrender | Viriyapanthu argued registration/interaction would force self-incrimination | ATF: statutes here forbid registration of unlawfully acquired/unlawfully possessed machineguns and do not impose an obligation to provide incriminating info | Privilege not triggered: no statutory obligation to provide incriminating information; unlike Haynes/Leary, statutes do not compel registration of contraband acquired illegally |
| Motion to take judicial notice of documents | Viriyapanthu sought notice of documents he later relied on | ATF: documents raised new arguments and were irrelevant to issues properly before court | Denied: documents relate to arguments raised first in reply and are not relevant to issues on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing comprehensive federal firearms regulatory scheme)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment context cited for background)
- Harris v. Maricopa Cty. Superior Court, 631 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2011) (exercise of appellate discretion to consider new legal issues)
- Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) (Fifth Amendment compelled testimony precedent)
- Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) (Fifth Amendment and registration of contraband)
- United States v. Hunter, 73 F.3d 260 (9th Cir. 1995) (registration and prosecution under NFA and §922 statutory framework)
- Holland America Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) (judicial notice and scope of materials on appeal)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (actual controversy requirement for declaratory relief)
- Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2002) (limits on declaratory relief claims)
AFFIRMED.