Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.1 Page10f12 ALAN BECK Attorney at Law 4780 Governor Drive San Diego, California 92122 Telephone: (61 9) 971-0414 Email: alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff Lycurgan Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 15323CASE NO. VS COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION - OF CIVIL RIGHTS, DECLARATORY B. Todd Jones in his Of?cial Capacity As AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Head of The BATFE. 9 Defendant. COMPLAINT COME NOW the Plaintiff, ARES ARMOR, on behalf of their customers, by and through their undersigned counsel, and complain against Defendants B. Todd Jones in his Of?cial Capacity As Head of the San Diego Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firm and Explosives and JOHN DOB 1-10 as follows: ARES ARMOR PI -1 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.2 Page20f 12 INTRODUCTION 1. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted to reduce crime, not place an undue burden on legal ?rearms owners from legal enjoyment of ?rearms. See GCA68, 90-618 sec. 101. 2. The GCA regulates ??rearms?. Id. The term "?rearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any ?rearm muf?er or ?rearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique ?rearm. See GCA68, 90-618, Ch. 44, Sec. 921(3). 3. An 80% receiver is a piece of material that resembles a receiver/frame of a ?rearm but that is not complete and requires ?nish work to be considered a lawful ?rearm. 4. 80% receivers/frames account for a vast amount of the ?rearms industry?s sales and revenue. The most commonly sold 80% receiver is that for the ri?e. ARES ARMOR PI - 2 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.3 Page30f 12 5. Ares Armor is a dealer of ?rearms parts and accessories including 80% receivers, which do not require a federal ?rearms license and are not regulated under the GCA. 6. On or about March 10, 2014 Ares Armor discovered that EP Armory, a manufacturer of polymer AR-15 80% receivers, had it?s facilities raided by the BATFE under the guise that EP Armory was unlawfully manufacturing ?rearms based on EP Armory?s manufacturing of 80% polymer lower receivers. Shortly thereafter, Ares Armor attorney (Jason Davis) alerted Ares Armor that its facilities were to be raided for the sole reason that Ares Armor is a customer of EP Armory. This is despite the fact that Mr. Davis sent a letter the BATFE explaining that the interpretation of the EP Armory manufacturing process to be incorrect. 7. Mr. Davis informed the CEO of Ares Armor, Dimitrios Karris that Ares Armor would be spared from having its facilities raided and criminal charges brought against its staff, if and only if, Ares Armor turn over all its inventory of EP Armory?s products and the Ares Armor customer list with detailed information of all Ares Armor customers. 8. This recent attempt is the second attempt by the BATFE to attain the Ares Armor Customer list. ?u?A?lu ?uu'AvL?. A .1 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.4 Page4of 12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the BATFE as it is a government agency. 11. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because they, inter alia, acted under the color of laws, policies, customs, and/or practices of Oceanside and/or within the geographic con?nes of the Oceanside. 12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. PARTIES 13. Plaintiff, Lycurgan Inc. DBA Ares Armor, is a business in Oceanside, California that primarily deals in gun parts, holsters, cases, apparel, and backpacks and a product referred to as a ?80% lower (receiver)?. These are semi formed pieces of metal or plastic that are shaped into the rough form of a lower receiver. These receivers require a special kit mounted in a drill press to ?nish the product or building the gun. The time required to complete the project ranges from 3 to 5 hours, the remaining 20%. Exhibits 9 &10: Store Products 14. Defendants John Doe 1-10 are sued in both their personal and of?cial capacity as administrators of the Gun Control Act of 1968. John Doe 1-10 are ARES ARMOR PI -4 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.5 Page50f 12 responsible for executing, maintaining and administering the guidelines establishedi in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and may be participants in the unconstitutional acts and practices discussed within this complaint. 15. Defendants John Doe 1-10, because of their enforcement actions, are accordingly liable to Plaintiffs for damages and other relief as set forth in this Complaint. 16. Plaintiffs have reviewed all documents available to them and have made a diligent and good faith effort to ascertain said persons' full names and identities; however, Plaintiff has been unable to ascertain the identities of said Defendants. The names, capacities, and relationships of defendants named as Doe Defendants will be alleged by amendment to this Complaint when they are revealed and thus properly identi?ed. 17. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint to add such parties as his true identities and capacities are ascertained through discovery or otherwise. 18. Defendant B. Todd Jones is the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) a federal agency established in 1972 and who enforces federal laws pertaining the regulation of ?rearms. 19. Employees of the BATFE have attempted to extort Ares Armor out of its customer list and over $300,000 in lawfully obtained merchandise under threat of having its facilities raided and employees prosecuted criminally on their claim that ARES ARMOR PI - 5 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.6 Page60f 12 Ares Armor has been selling the EP Armory product which the BATFE recently deemed to be a ?rearm based on a faulty interpretation of how the product is manufactured. EP Armorv?s Polvmer 80% Lower Receiver is Not a Firearm 19. The BATFE has consistently determined that the machining operations that cannot be performed in order to not be considered a ?rearm are as follows: 1. Milling out of ?re-control cavity. (See Exhibit 3) 2. Selector?lever hole drilled. (See Exhibit 7) 3. Cutting of trigger slot. (See Exhibit 4) 4. Drilling of trigger pin hole. (See Exhibit 6) 5 . Drilling of hammer pin hole. (See Exhibit 5) (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 for BATFE letters regarding 80% Receivers) 20. Additionally, the BATFE has consistently determined that operations interpreted to allowed such that the receiver is not considered to be a ?rearm are as follows: . Front and rear assembly/pivot pin holes drilled. . Front and rear assembly/pivot-detent pin holes drilled. El . Magazine-release and catch slots cut. El . Rear of receiver drilled and threaded to accept buffer tube. . Buffer-retainer hole drilled. El . Pistol-grip mounting area faced off and threaded. . Magazine well completed. El . Trigger guard machined. El 9. Receiver end-plate area machined. 10. Pistol-grip mounting area threaded. 11. Selector-lever detent hole drilled. (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) ARES ARMOR PI - 6 .(See Exhibits 3-8 PHOTOS) Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.7 Page7of 12 The EP Armory Polymer 80% lower receiver(s) conform to all the parameters for a product that does not constitute a ?rearm under the GCA68 and does not have any of the illicit features which the BATFE would consider to push the receiver into a category that would classify it as a ?rearm. The recent attemLm to classify the EP Armorv 80% lower receiver as a ?rearm is an attack on lawful sales of a product which is not a ?rearm. 22. The BATFE is attempting to acquire the Ares Armor customer list under the guise that one of the products sold is an unlawful ?rearm. The explanation for requiring the email list is to ensure that no persons prohibited from ?rearms ownership have purchased the EP Armory Polymer 80% lower receivers. If the BATFE truly believes that the EP Armory 80% lower receiver is an unlawful ?rearm, why then are they only concerned with prohibited persons? One of the core objectives of the BATFE is to ensure that no illegal ?rearms are circulated in commerce. Thus, the BATFE should be concerned will all EP Armory products ARES ARMOR PI - 7 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.8 Page80f 12 sold if they truly believe it to be an illegally manufactured ?rearm. Since this is not the case it appears that the BATFE is seeking to acquire the Ares Armor customer list for some other non-disclosed reason which appears to be nefarious in nature. 23. Ares Armor speci?cally states on the Aresarmor.com website that if the company discovers a customer is prohibited from ?rearms ownership that they will be reported to the authorities. Additionally, parties purchasing 80% products from the aresarmorcom website must check a box that they are not prohibited from owning ?rearms. Ares Armor does not seek to promote individuals prohibited? from ?rearms ownership attaining ?rearms. Thus, the BATFE has no reason to believe that Ares Armor has any people prohibited ?om owning guns on its list. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Fourth Amendment 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated as though fully stated herein. 25. "[T]he basic purpose of th[e Fourth] Amendment, as recognized im countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Camara Mun. Court, 387 US. 523, 528 (1967). ARES ARMOR PI - 8 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.9 Page9of 12 26. Ares Armor has a protected privacy right in its customer list. 27 .Ares Armor has a protected right to be free from seizure of its inventory and! customer list. 21. Defendant?s actions in enforcing the Code against Ares Armor is al violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the current cause of action is within this Court?s jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 22. The actions described herein amount to a clear and present danger to civil liberties. The actions complained herein infringe upon the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and must be found unconstitutional and the current cause of action is within this Court?s jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Second Cause of Action 23.Ares Armor Sues on Behalf of Its Customers 24.Ares Armors Customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in purchasing goods without government gaining their private information. 25.Accordingly, planned action violates the rights of Ares Armor?s Customers. ARES ARMOR PI - 9 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 Page 10 of 12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. That a jury be empaneled to decide contested factual issues in this matter. 2. Declaratory judgment that the EP Armory 80% lower receiver is not a ?rearm. 3. A temporary restraining order compelling Defendants and/or their of?cers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with theml who receive notice of this injunction ?'om seizing the Ares Armor EP Armory Inventory and customer list. 4. Preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief compelling Defendants and/or their of?cers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with them who receive notice of this injunction, from seizing the Ares Armor EP Armory Inventory and customer list. 5. Such other and further relief, including injunctive relief, against all Defendants, as may be necessary to effectuate the Court's judgment, or as the Court otherwise deems just and equitable; and 6. Attorney's fees, statutory fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. ARES ARMOR PI - 10 Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.11 Page 11 of 12 Dated: March 11m, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, By: Alan Beck ALAN BECK Esq. 4780 Governor Drive San Diego, California 92122 (619)971-0414 ARES ARMORPI- ll Case Documentl Filed 03/11/14 PageID.12 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this, the 11th day of March 2014 I served the foregoing pleading by electronically ?ling it with the Court?s system, which generated a Notice of Filing and e??ects service upon counsel for all parties in the case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 8/ Alan Beck Alan Beck