Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0587-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bruce R. BARANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet C. VAN HAELST, Acting Director of Industry Operations Seattle Field Division Bureau of Alcohol Tabacco Firearms and Explosives, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35005.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 13, 2011.
    Filed Oct. 25, 2011.
    Thomas Milby Smith, Esquire, Thomas Milby Smith, Inc. P.S., Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Rolf Harry Tangvald, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C. Collins, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Barany appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) on his claim that the ATF improperly denied his federal firearms license (“FFL”) application. Barany argues that ATF lacked authority to deny his application on the basis of willful violations of the Gun Control Act and its regulations committed by the General Store, Inc. See General Store, Inc. v. Van Loan, 560 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.2009).

Barany was listed as a “responsible person” on the General Store’s corporate FFL. He was one of two corporate officers and one of two shareholders in a small family-run corporation in which he actively participated in the management of the day-to-day activities of the store. Moreover, it is apparent from the administrative record, and specifically from the information disclosed in his FFL application and in his interview with an ATF inspector, that Barany was applying for an FFL in order to revive the General Store’s former gun department under another business name and thus to evade the consequences of the revocation of the General Store’s FFL. Under these circumstances, ATF was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 923(d)(1)(C) to deny his FFL application based on the willful violations committed by the General Store, Inc.

Because denial of an FFL application is not the enforcement or assessment of a civil penalty, the statute of limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 does not apply here. Rivera v. Pugh, 194 F.3d 1064, 1068-69 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court therefore did not err in concluding that ATF was authorized to deny Barany’s FFL application.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.