Roe v. Dettelbach

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing lawsuit filed by plaintiff-owner of “drop-in auto sear” device in action seeking declaration that plaintiff was entitled to possess and keep said device that he currently possesses. Record showed that plaintiff purchased said device, which can make firearms fully automatic, at time when he could lawfully purchase and possess said device. However, in 1981 defendant-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) generated regulation that required owners of said device to register said device, and in 1986 Gun Control Act imposed ban in individuals transferring or possessing instant unregistered device. In instant action, plaintiff sought as remedy either order directing ATF to exempt his device from any registration requirement, or, in alternative, to create amnesty period during which plaintiff and others could register pre-1981 devices. Ct. of Appeals, though, found that neither proposed remedy was possible, and thus, where plaintiff lacked valid claim for compensation and lacked properly stated claim, instant lawsuit must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state valid claim. Ct. also noted that while it was not making ruling as to whether plaintiff could properly file instant lawsuit under pseudonym (in order to remain anonymous to prevent any future criminal prosecution), plaintiff was still required to comply with Circuit Rule 26.1, which mandates that anonymous litigants reveal true name on disclosure statement and file said statement under seal.