Cite as Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw, 1997 WL 785623 (D.D.C. 1997)

                MODERN MUZZLELOADING, INC., Plaintiff,

                                  v.

John MAGAW, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
Defendant.

                       No. Civ.A. 97-02956(TAF).

          United States District Court, District of Columbia.

                            Dec. 15, 1997.

                              MEMORANDUM

      FLANNERY, J.

      At a December 12, 1997 hearing in this matter, the Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. 
The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the reasons for
the Court's ruling.

      The parties' dispute in this case is over whether the
plaintiff's "Knight Disc Rifle" is a "firearm" or a "replica of
an antique firearm," as those terms are defined in the Gun
Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. sections 921-930 ("the Act").  The
Act provides that a "firearm" cannot be manufactured without a
license, but exempts a "replica" of an "antique firearm" from the
definition of a "firearm."  See 18 U.S.C. section 921.  The
plaintiff is an unlicensed manufacturer that has sold 30,000
Knight Disc rifles since September 1996.  It claims that the
Knight Disc Rifle qualifies under the Act's definition of a
replica of an antique firearm.  On December 8, 1997, however, the
defendant notified the plaintiff of its contrary view that the
rifle is a "firearm" that cannot be manufactured without a
license.

      The plaintiff claims that the defendant's interpretation is
arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act. As ultimate relief in this case, it seeks a
declaration that the defendant's interpretation is in error and
an injunction preventing the defendant from enforcing that
interpretation against the plaintiff.  In the meantime, the
plaintiff filed motions for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction.

      To obtain a temporary restraining order, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that it has a likelihood of success on the merits,
that it will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction, that
third parties will not be harmed by an injunction, and that the
public interest will be served by an injunction.  See Cuomo v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 772 F.2d 972, 974
(D.C.Cir.1985).  Weighing these factors in this case, the Court
concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to emergency relief. 
First, the defendant persuaded the Court that this is at the very
least a close case on the merits. Second, given that the Court
and the parties have agreed to proceed on an expedited basis, the
plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that it would be irreparably
injured by a month-long wait while the parties fully brief and
argue the case.  Finally, the defendant persuaded the Court that
the public interest would not be served by permitting the
plaintiff to continue to manufacture and distribute the Knight
Disc Rifle pending the Court's final ruling on the merits.  For
these reasons, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order.