Burkhead v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
KIRK ALAN BURKHEAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AND U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:25-cv-06001-RK
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 16), and Defendants’
cross motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 22). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is fully
briefed. (Docs. 17, 22, 23.) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and suggestions in support
have been filed, and Plaintiff has filed his suggestions in opposition. (Docs. 22, 23.)1 After careful
consideration and for the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED, Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and this case is
DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Background2
In 2005, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor of
assault in the third degree. He was given a 120-day suspended sentence and was placed on
probation for two years. On April 2, 2019, the Circuit Court of Daviess County, Missouri, entered
an order expunging Plaintiff’s 2005 conviction pursuant to § 610.140, RSMo.
After receiving the expungement of his 2005 conviction, Plaintiff successfully purchased
a number of firearms including rifles, a pistol, and a shotgun. Plaintiff then applied for the transfer
1 At the parties’ request, the Court entered a scheduling order which combined the briefing schedule
for Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 12,
13.) Pursuant to this briefing schedule, Defendants’ reply brief in support of its motion for summary
judgment is due on March 13, 2026. However, the Court finds that further briefing from Defendants is
unnecessary and concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on the record before
the Court and the arguments made in Defendants’ opening brief in support of summary judgment. Plaintiff
has had an opportunity to fully respond to both motions and did so.
2 Uncontroverted facts are incorporated without citation.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 10

2
of firearm silencers from two different Federal Firearms Licensees (“FFLs”). As discussed more
fully below, to apply for the transfer of a silencer Plaintiff was required to submit an ATF Form 4
and applicable tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) for
approval pursuant to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5812 . The ATF denied both of
Plaintiff’s applications for the transfer of a silencer.3
Plaintiff appealed the denials of his applications for the transfer of a silencer by submitting
two “Voluntary Appeal File” (“VAF”) requests to the FBI.4 Plaintiff received two responses to his
VAF requests. The first is a letter dated August 28, 2024, from the FBI Criminal Justice
Information Services Division, NICS Section. The letter states that Plaintiff is “not eligible to be
entered into the VAF” and that his “FBI Identity History Summary and/or state-maintained
criminal history reveals a potentially prohibitive arrest.” (Doc. 17-2 at 1.) The letter refers
specifically to Plaintiff’s August 25, 2005 arrest. (Id.) The second letter is dated September 19,
2024. It is substantively similar to the first letter and again states that Plaintiff is “not eligible to
be entered into the VAF” and that his “FBI Identity History Summary and/or state-maintained
3 Plaintiff’s statement of uncontroverted facts vaguely states as to both attempts to buy a silencer
only that Plaintiff’s “application was denied.” (Doc. 17 at ¶¶ 9-10.) However, federal law requires that
applications for the transfer of certain firearms—including silencers—must be submitted to and approved
by ATF through a Form 4 rather than through the normal FFL-purchase process for a regular or common
handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Plaintiff’s applications for transfers of silencers were thus denied by ATF
through this process.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s arguments show that Plaintiff was denied the transfer of silencers by the ATF
as part of ATF’s review of his Form 4s. (See Doc. 23 at 9 (noting ATF has integrated a NICS check and
arguing that “[d]espite this procedural integration, the underlying denial, if based on erroneous NICS
information, remains tied to . . . § 922(t).”); id. at 10 (“If an NFA Form 4 for a silencer is denied solely
because of erroneous NICS information . . . .”); id. at 17 (“The fact that the ATF effectuates the denial via
a 26 U.S.C. § 5812 approval (rather than an FFL’s NICS “deny”) does not change the fact that the root
cause of the denial is an alleged erroneous § 922(g) record.”).)
Plaintiff failed to attach to his complaint or motion for summary judgment any documentation of
the original denials of his applications for transfers of silencers by ATF. Instead, Plaintiff only attached
copies of the letters he received from the FBI after attempting to open a Voluntary Appeal File in response
to the denials by ATF. These letters are not the original denials from ATF.
4 The VAF is “designed for individuals who believe they are legally allowed to receive/possess
firearms, yet they have received a denial decision or experience extended delays with their NICS
background checks.” Voluntary Appeal File, FBI.gov, https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-
fbi-services-and-information/nics/voluntary-appeal-file#Frequently-Asked%20Questions [https://perma.
cc/QFD6-CJGU]. If approved, the individual receives a unique PIN that “gives NICS access to information
retained in the individual’s VAF,” i.e., allowing the FBI to retain certain documents and other identifying
information for the individual, although it “does not itself negate the fact that a background check must still
be completed with subsequent firearm transfers from FFLs.”
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 10

3
criminal history reveals a potentially prohibitive arrest.” (Id. at 3.) This letter does not specifically
mention Plaintiff’s 2005 Conviction but states that “Missouri expungement orders are ONLY valid
for 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) purposes.” (Id.)
On or about October 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s representative submitted additional documents
regarding Plaintiff’s expungement to the FBI. In response to the submission of additional
information, Plaintiff received a letter from the FBI dated November 25, 2024. The letter again
states that Plaintiff is “not eligible to be entered into the VAF” and that his “FBI Identity History
Summary and/or state-maintained criminal history reveals a potentially prohibitive arrest, August
25, 2005.” (Doc. 17-4 at 1.)
In response to his applications for the transfer of a silencer being denied by the ATF and
the subsequent denials for a Voluntary Appeal File by the FBI, Plaintiff filed this action on January
2, 2025, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A. (Doc. 1.)
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a movant is entitled to
summary judgment on a claim if the movant has made a showing that “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See also Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). It is “appropriate to decide [a] case on summary
judgment” when “the parties do not dispute the facts . . . [and] the issues are purely legal.” Dowdle
v. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2005).
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that he was improperly denied the transfer of a silencer because of
erroneous information or an erroneous determination disseminated through a NICS background
check indicating that he is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) from receiving a silencer
notwithstanding the expungement of his 2005 Conviction.5 Plaintiff argues that his 2005
Conviction was expunged and that the legal effect of such expungement under Missouri law is to
completely restore his right to possess a firearm. Plaintiff thus filed suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 925A, which provides a remedy for the erroneous denial of a firearm in certain circumstances.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot seek relief for the denial of the transfer of a silencer in this
5 The Court notes again that it is not clear on the summary judgment record why the ATF denied
Plaintiff’s Form 4 application to purchase a silencer because Plaintiff did not provide documentation of the
original denials by the ATF.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 10

4
case because Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants argue that 18 U.S.C.
§ 925A does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity as to the ATF’s decision denying
Plaintiff’s Form 4 for the transfer of a silencer under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5812,
rather than the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act more generally.
I. Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Firearm Transfers
Addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment first requires a summary of the
relevant statutory and regulatory framework for firearm transfers.
In 1993, Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”).
Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993). The Brady Act amended the Gun Control Act (“GCA”)
and required the U.S. Attorney General to establish a background check system for use in the
purchase or transfer of firearms. Id. Accordingly, the Attorney General established the National
Instant Background Check System or NICS. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 25.1 et seq. NICS is managed by
the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division, NICS Section.
The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (“FFL”) to contact NICS to perform a
background check on a purchaser before most firearm transfers. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1). Title
18 of the U.S. Code broadly defines “firearm” as:
(A) any weapon (including starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projective by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any
destructive device.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). When an FFL contacts NICS to perform a background check, NICS verifies
that the seller is licensed, conducts a search of databases for any record suggesting that the
purchaser is prohibited from acquiring a firearm, and issues a determination that the transaction
may proceed, is delayed, or is denied. 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(c). The FFL may complete the transfer of
the firearm if “3 business days . . . have elapsed since the licensee contacted [NICS], and the system
has not notified the licensee” that the transferee cannot obtain a firearm. 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(t)(1)(B)(ii). Section 922(t)(3) identifies the types of firearm transfers exempt from the
§ 922(t)(1) requirement that an FFL contact NICS to perform a background check. Most relevant
here, the requirement that an FFL contact NICS “shall not apply to a firearm transfer between a
licensee and another person if[] the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(B).
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 10

5
Pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, certain types of firearms regulated by the National
Firearms Act (“NFA”) require the submission of an application and applicable tax to ATF and ATF
approval before the firearm may be transferred. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5811 & 5812.6 Title 26 of the U.S.
Code defines “firearm” to include only a narrow class of specialized weapons including short-
barreled rifles, destructive devices, and “any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United
States Code).” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a).7 For this narrow class of specialized weapons regulated by
the NFA, “[t]he transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the [ATF]
has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee.” 26 U.S.C. § 5812(b).
In other words, an NFA-regulated firearm, including a silencer, cannot be transferred without
explicit permission from the ATF.
To seek ATF approval for the transfer of a silencer, a prospective purchaser must submit an
ATF Form 4 and pay any applicable tax to the ATF.8 26 U.S.C § 5812(a); 27 C.F.R. § 479.84.
Upon review by the ATF, “[a]pplications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of
the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law.” 26 U.S.C § 5812(a). In 1998, five
years after the Brady Act amending the GCA was passed, the ATF chose by regulatory rulemaking
to consult NICS to aid in its determination of whether to approve a transfer of an NFA-regulated
firearm. See 63 Fed. Reg. 58281 (Oct. 29, 1998) (amending 27 C.F.R. § 179.86 to add a sentence
requiring that the “Director shall contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System”
to determine action on an application for transfer of firearms); see also 27 C.F.R. § 479.86.9 There
6 Title 26 U.C.S. § 5812 originally provided authority to the Secretary of Treasury to accept
applications for and approve transfers of NFA firearms. However, the Secretary of Treasury has since
delegated its authority under 26 U.S.C. § 5812 to the ATF. See Demko v. United States, 216 F.3d 1049,
1051 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing Treasury Dep’t Order No. 221, 1972-1 C.B. 777).
7 The NFA’s definition of a “firearm” is thus much narrower than the Brady Act’s definition
codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
8 Historically, there has been a $200 tax stamp for each application for transfer of a firearm
regulated by the NFA. However, as of January 1, 2026, this tax stamp has been reduced to $0 for silencers.
See Pub. L. 119-21, sec. 70436 (2025).
9 Title 27 C.F.R. § 179.86 was later recodified at 27 C.F.R. § 479.86 in 2003 as part of a larger
reorganization of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. See 68 Fed. Reg. 3752 (Jan. 24, 2003). The
actual text of the regulation remains the same.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 10

6
is no language in 26 U.S.C. § 5812 requiring that the ATF approve an application for the transfer
of a firearm so long as certain requirements are met.10
Finally, § 104 of the Brady Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 925A, establishes a remedy for the
erroneous denial of a firearm and waives sovereign immunity in specific circumstances:
Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s)[11] or (t) of section 922 –
(1) due to the provision of erroneous information relating to the person by any State
or political subdivision thereof, or by the national instant criminal background
check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act; or
(2) who was not prohibited from receipt of a firearm pursuant to subsection (g) or
(n) of section 922,
may bring an action against the State or political subdivision responsible for
providing the erroneous information, or responsible for denying the transfer, or
against the United States, as the case may be, for an order directing that the
erroneous information be corrected or that the transfer be approved . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 925A.
II. Sovereign Immunity
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because 18 U.S.C. § 925A
does not contain an unambiguous waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity from suits
challenging a denial of an application for transfer of a silencer pursuant to the NFA, particularly
26 U.S.C. § 5812. Plaintiff argues that the ATF’s review of applications for the transfer of a
silencer involve a NICS background check tied to 18 U.S.C. § 922(t), which is sufficient to bring
the denial of such transfers within the waiver of sovereign immunity articulated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 925A.
“Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to hear claims against the United States because
of sovereign immunity.” Barnes v. United States, 448 U.S. 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2006); see also
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may
10 Accordingly, some courts have concluded that the ATF’s authority to approve or deny such
transfers is discretionary. See Kaszycki v. United States, No C19-1943 RSM, 2020 WL2838598, at *4 (W.D.
Wash. June 1, 2020) (“[T]hese statutes [26 U.S.C. §§ 5512 and 5522] gave ATF discretion to approve or
not approve Mr. Kaszycki’s applications for silencers and to modify a rifle); Clark v. Restaino, No. 1:22-
cv-00193-BLW, 2022 WL 4585830, at *3 (D. Idaho Sept. 29, 2022) (“[A] Washington federal district court
concluded that the ATF has the discretion to approve—or not approve—applications to make silencers. . . .
This Court agrees.”) (citing Kaszycki)).
11 Subsection 922(s) expired 60 months after its date of enactment. Therefore, § 925A now only
provides an avenue for relief for denials of firearms pursuant to § 922(t).
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 10

7
not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”).
“A waiver of sovereign immunity is strictly and narrowly construed in favor of the United States,
and the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the waiver.” Parker v. United States, No. 4:19-
cv-3251 HEA, 2020 WL 1888814, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 16, 2020) (citing Snider v. United States,
468 F.3d 500, 509 (8th Cir. 2006)). “Waivers of the Government’s sovereign immunity, to be
effective, must be ‘unequivocally expressed.’” United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-
34 (quoting Irvin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 498 U.S. 89, 95 (1990)).
Here, the parties agree that 18 U.S.C. § 925A provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for
any person denied a firearm “pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922” where that denial is
made pursuant to allegedly erroneous information provided by NICS. The parties disagree,
however, as to whether the ATF’s denials of Plaintiff’s applications for the transfer of silencers fall
within this waiver provision. In other words, the question is whether the ATF’s denials of
Plaintiff’s applications were “pursuant to § 922(t),” or some other authority. The Court is
persuaded by Defendants’ arguments and concludes that the ATF’s denials of Plaintiff’s
applications for the transfer of a silencer were pursuant to its authority under 26 U.S.C. § 5812,
and not pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(t), despite the use of a NICS background check during the
ATF’s review or approval process for the requested transfer of a silencer.
The relevant statutory and regulatory framework for the transfer of firearms establishes
two distinct processes for the transfer of a firearm depending on whether that firearm is regulated
by the NFA. See United States v. McGill, 618 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The NFA
establishes a separate regulatory structure for a narrow class of specialized weapons.”). On the
one hand, for non-NFA firearms, an FFL must contact NICS and initiate a background check
pursuant to § 922(t)(1) prior to the transfer of a firearm. Under applicable statutory and regulatory
law, the application process to purchase a non-NFA firearm proceeds as follows:
• Step 1 – A prospective purchaser goes to an FFL to purchase a non-NFA firearm.
• Step 2 – The FFL contacts NICS to conduct a background check on the
prospective purchaser as required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1).
• Step 3 – NICS informs the FFL whether the transfer is approved, delayed, or
denied; alternatively, the transfer may proceed after three business days if the
FFL does not receive communication from NICS indicating that the prospective
purchaser is ineligible to receive the firearm.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 10

8
If the transfer is denied based on allegedly erroneous information provided by NICS, the denial is
clearly “pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)” and falls within the waiver of sovereign immunity under
18 U.S.C. § 925A. On this, the parties agree.
On the other hand, for firearms subject to the NFA—including silencers—an FFL has no
obligation to contact NICS to initiate a background check pursuant to § 922(t). Instead, the
application process for NFA-regulated firearms, including silencers, proceeds as follows:
• Step 1 – A prospective purchaser goes to an FFL to purchase a silencer.
• Step 2 – The FFL must submit an ATF Form 4 and any applicable tax to the
ATF as required by 26 U.S.C. §§ 5811 and 5812 and implementing regulations.
• Step 3 – The ATF reviews the application based on the requirements in 26
U.S.C. § 5812 and its implementing regulations.
• Step 4 – The ATF denies or approves the transfer. A denial ends the inquiry as
“the transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the
Secretary has approved the transfer.” 26 U.S.C. § 5812(b). An approval also
ends the inquiry as an FFL is not required to initiate a NICS background check
if the ATF approved the transfer under § 5812.
Thus, a denial of a transfer of a silencer by the ATF does not implicate 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)
in the way that the denial of a transfer of a non-NFA firearm based on an FFL-initiated NICS
background check does. When the NFA applies, the ATF considers the submitted Form 4 pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. § 5812 and its implementing regulations. One of these regulations, 27 C.F.R.
§ 479.86, does require that the ATF contact NICS to conduct a background check. Plaintiff argues
that the ATF’s “procedural integration” of a NICS background check causes “the underlying denial,
if based on erroneous NICS information, [to] remain[] tied to the GCA’s 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)
mandate.” (Doc. 23 at 9.) Plaintiff further argues that there is no carve-out from the § 922(t)
mandate for a NICS background check for NFA-regulated firearms. However, these arguments
are contrary to the statutory text and to the requirement that § 925A be narrowly or strictly
construed as a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity.
The NFA, and not the Brady Act, governs the transfer (“purchase”) of a silencer. Title 18
U.S.C. § 922(t)(3) exempts transfers approved by the ATF pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5812 from the
requirement that an FFL contact NICS for a background check.12 When 18 U.S.C. § 922(t) was
passed in 1993, the ATF was not required to contact NICS for a background check to approve an
12 In other words, when a transfer must be approved by the ATF, the NFA (rather than the Brady
Act) governs.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 10

9
application pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5812. Nor did the Brady Act amend 26 U.S.C. § 5812 in any
way to incorporate the § 922(t) background check requirement into that process. Thus, from 1993
to 1998 the ATF was not required to contact NICS for a background check to approve an
application pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5812. Now, the ATF is only required to do so by regulation.
See 27 C.F.R. § 479.86. Regulations alone are insufficient to waive sovereign immunity. Heller
v. United States, 776 F.2d 92, 98 n.7 (3d Cir. 1985) (“[G]overnmental regulations alone, without
the express intent of Congress, cannot waive sovereign immunity.”); see also United States v. N.Y.
Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 661 (1947) (“[O]fficers of the United States possess no power
through their actions to waive an immunity of the United States or to confer jurisdiction on a court
in the absence of some express provision by Congress.”). Even though the “cause” of the denial
of Plaintiff’s attempt to purchase a silencer may be the same as the denial of a purchase of a regular
non-NFA firearm from an FFL (presuming the required NICS background check initiated by the
FFL was unfavorable)—i.e., an allegedly erroneous § 922(g) record—Plaintiff’s argument
incorrectly focuses on the means by which the denial is made (a NICS background check) rather
than the source of authority for the denial decision. Section 925A waives sovereign immunity to
challenge a NICS background check and subsequent denial of a firearms purchase pursuant to the
Brady Act. It does not clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity to challenge a NICS
background check and denial by the ATF of a transfer for a NFA-regulated firearm, including a
silencer, under the NFA and 28 U.S.C. § 5812.13
The only other court to directly address this issue came to the same conclusion. See
Kaszycki v. United States, No. C19-1943 RSM, 2020 WL 2838598, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 1,
2020). Kaszycki sought to purchase seven silencers, and all seven Form 4 applications were denied
by the ATF due to his NICS background check being in “open” status. Id. at *1. Kaszycki
subsequently learned that his applications were denied pursuant to § 922(g)(4), which makes it
unlawful for any person who has been committed to a mental institution to receive a firearm. Id.
However, Kaszycki alleged that he had never been involuntarily committed, and he brought a claim
for wrongful denial of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A.
In determining that sovereign immunity barred Kaszycki’s claim, the Western District of
Washington noted that the NFA establishes a separate regulatory structure for a narrow class of
13 It is, however, squarely within Congress’ power, if it chooses, to waive sovereign immunity under
the NFA like it did under the Brady Act.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 10

10
specialized weapons including silencers and that the statutory framework creates a “carve-out for
the ATF to approve or deny applications under § 5812, and that this is different than applications
approved or denied after an FFL initiates an NICS background check pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(t).” Id. at *3. The Kaszycki Court concluded that the “ATF acted on its own pursuant to
section 5812 in not approving these applications” and therefore “Mr. Kaszycki cannot bring a cause
of action under 18 U.S.C. § 925A and he has failed to show a waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id.
The Court finds Kaszycki persuasive and adopts the same analysis.
When the ATF denies a Form 4 requesting a transfer of an NFA-regulated firearm, such as
a silencer, it does so pursuant to its distinct statutory authority in 26 U.S.C. § 5812. This denial
does not implicate the 18 U.S.C. § 922(t) mandate that FFLs contact NICS to conduct a background
check prior to transferring non-NFA firearms. The ATF’s self-imposed regulatory requirement that
it contact NICS prior to determining whether to approve the transfer of a silencer does not change
this determination. Title 18 U.S.C. § 925A only waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for
challenges to denials of transfers of firearms “pursuant to” 18 U.S.C. § 922(t), not denials pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. § 5812. Plaintiff has not argued that any other authority apart from 18 U.S.C. § 925A
would waive the United States’ sovereign immunity in this case. Therefore, Defendants are
entitled to sovereign immunity.14
Conclusion
Accordingly, after careful consideration and for the reasons explained above, the Court
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 16), is DENIED, Defendants’
cross motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 22), is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: February 12, 2026
14 Having determined that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the
merits of Plaintiff’s claim that he was erroneously denied the transfer of a silencer.
Case 5:25-cv-06001-RK Document 24 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 10