THE MODERN SPORTSMAN, LLC v. United States
1:19-cv-00449
Fed. Cl.May 8, 2025Background
- After a 2017 mass shooting involving bump stocks, the ATF issued a rule in 2018 classifying bump stocks as "machineguns" under federal law, requiring owners to destroy or surrender them.
- Plaintiffs, including The Modern Sportsman and others, complied with the rule and later filed suit, alleging a taking of property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and, alternatively, an illegal exaction.
- The case originally resulted in dismissal under the police power doctrine and due to a lack of property interest; these decisions were affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied review.
- Following the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Garland v. Cargill, holding bump stocks are not machineguns and invalidating the ATF rule, plaintiffs moved to revive their claims.
- The government moved to dismiss both the takings and illegal exaction claims; the court addresses both in this opinion.
- Procedurally, the court denies dismissal of the takings claim (pending related appellate proceedings), but grants dismissal of the illegal exaction claim, and reminds attorneys of their duty of candor to the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Taking | Forced destruction/surrender of bump stocks constitutes a compensable physical taking of property. | No physical appropriation/seizure by government; "clarification" of existing law only. | Plaintiffs state a plausible physical taking claim; motion to dismiss denied on this point. |
| Authorization of Agency Act | ATF's rule created new obligations not previously established by statute; thus, taking is compensable. | Actions may not be "authorized" under the Tucker Act due to ongoing appellate proceedings. | Decision on whether taking was "authorized" deferred pending outcome of Darby appellate case. |
| Illegal Exaction | Unlawful rule caused an illegal exaction of property, seeking recovery of property rights. | No money was paid or exacted; law requires money-mandating source for such claims. | Illegal exaction claim dismissed; no money-mandating statute or payment exists. |
| Attorney Conduct | N/A (Court's concern about legal citations and candor to the court.) | N/A | Court admonishes plaintiffs' counsel to adhere to candor and accuracy in legal briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 350 (2015) (Takings Clause applies to real and personal property; agency order as a compensable taking)
- Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021) (Physical invasion as per se taking)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (Regulatory taking if all economic use is eliminated)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (Factors for regulatory takings)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (Permanent physical occupation is a taking)
- Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Pleading standard for motion to dismiss)
- Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Illegal exaction grounded in Due Process Clause)
- Boeing Co. v. United States, 968 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Illegal exaction requires money-mandating source for claim)
- Piszel v. United States, 833 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Illegal exaction does not include general loss of property)