Elgersma v. NICS

Background

David Elgersma, representing himself, sued the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), along with Scheels, Cabela’s, and Fleet Farm, after the dealers refused to sell him firearms. According to the complaint, NICS returned a “delay” response for each attempted purchase. Elgersma alleged that the delay was unlawful and violated his Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm, and he asked the court to order NICS to stop issuing delay responses.

The Minnesota state court dismissed Scheels, Cabela’s, and Fleet Farm before the case was removed to federal court. NICS then moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Scheels separately moved to strike the complaint, and Elgersma moved for a hearing.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

NICS argued that sovereign immunity deprived the federal court of jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the statute authorizing a claim against the United States for an erroneous firearm background-check result applies to a person who was denied a firearm, not merely delayed. Because Elgersma alleged a delay rather than a denial, he could not proceed under that statute.

But the court also determined that Elgersma had not brought his claim under that statute. The court construed his complaint as asserting a general Second Amendment claim seeking primarily non-money-related relief. It concluded that sovereign immunity did not prevent that type of claim and denied NICS’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Failure to State a Claim

The court then considered NICS’s alternative motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint contains enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court held that Elgersma failed to state a Second Amendment claim. It explained that background checks before firearm sales are generally constitutional and that the Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm is not unlimited.

The court recognized that an otherwise constitutional system might become unconstitutional if used for abusive purposes, such as imposing lengthy waits or excessive fees. But it found that Elgersma had not alleged facts showing that NICS’s system was abusive. Under the system described in the opinion, a person receiving a delay response would face, at most, a three-day wait before a dealer could proceed with the sale. The court also concluded that the dealers’ independent decisions not to sell firearms could not be attributed to NICS.

Disposition

The court granted NICS’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It dismissed Elgersma’s complaint without prejudice. The court dismissed Scheels’ motion to strike as moot and denied Elgersma’s motion for a hearing. The order directed that judgment be entered.