OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the State of New York (the “State”) sues ten Defendants allegedly involved in the manufacture or sale of “unfinished” firearm frames and receivers that can be quickly and easily converted into functional firearms.1 Such firearms are commonly known as “ghost guns” because they are not stamped with serial numbers or otherwise registered and, thus, “are untraceable when recovered by law enforcement in connection with a crime.” ECF No. 1-5 (“Am. Compl.”), 3. The State contends that Defendants’ products are illegal and contribute “significant[ly]” to “ a public health and safety crisis caused by gun violence.” Id.
1, 4. It alleges various violations of New York State law and seeks damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement on behalf of the People of the State of New York. At this stage of the case, however, the merits of the State’s claims are not at issue. Instead, the question is where the parties’ disputes should be resolved. The State originally filed suit in New York State court. Defendants removed the case to this Court on the ground that one or more of the State’s claims, although nominally brought under state law, presents a “substantial federal question,” most notably whether the products at issue qualify as “firearms” or “component parts”2 thereof within the meaning of a federal law that is incorporated, in turn, into the relevant New York law. The State now moves to remand the case back to state court, arguing that there is no disputed federal question raised by its claims and, in any event, that adjudication of the case in federal court would disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. See ECF No. 42. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that this case falls within the special and small category of cases subject to removal pursuant to what is known as the “substantial federal question doctrine.” In particular, whether the products at issue are “firearms” or “component parts” thereof within the meaning of federal law is a substantial question that is necessarily raised by at least one of the State’s claims and actually in dispute. And given the longstanding and strong federal interest in regulating the manufacture and sale of firearms in interstate commerce, the exercise of federal jurisdiction would not disrupt the federal-state balance approved by Congress. Accordingly, the State’s motion to remand is DENIED. BACKGROUND The following background is taken from the State’s Amended Complaint and Defendants’ Notice of Removal. Because the Court has an independent obligation to determine if it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are accepted as true for purposes of this motion, but no inferences are drawn in either side’s favor; the parties asserting jurisdiction — here, Defendants — must show it affirmatively. See, e.g., Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos, 140 F.3d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1998). A. Ghost Guns Defendants are in the business of selling “nominally unfinished frames and receivers” that can easily be converted into ghost guns. Am. Compl. 3; see id. 1. A “frame” is the core part of a handgun or pistol, and a “receiver” is the core part of a rifle, shotgun, or other long gun. Id. 31. An “unfinished” frame or receiver requires an extra step to be rendered usable: usually drilling of a few required holes or filing of excess plastic. Id.
