his transfer paperwork correctly and that he wasn't performing background checks on these individuals he was selling guns to and so those are the three major categories of violations and the repetitions hearing each year found that just ask a question about the way this court should be looking at the issue at this point district court innards summary judgment correct and your contesting the violations we're really just talking about the willful element and so here's my question is is the question whether there's a genuine issue of material fact as to whether c e w's violations were willful or is it whether there's a genuine issue as to whether there was sufficient evidence that the violations were willful so that the attorney mistakes and that there was no evidence there was no admissions in the record there was no repeat eilish and and so if you find that maybe some of them were excusable just for excusable neglect then  but also i think it's clear from the record that at a minimum several of them were not well don't you have to win on you have to mince us on all of them for us to reverse the summary judgment because  even one violation was well all those judge mathis just pointed out then the district court was correct to grant summary judgment isn't that the issue before us you know i agree that is the issue for you they only need to prove one think you would have two options i think you could reverse the district court's findings and reinstate my client's firearms license in which case it would be dependent on subsequent compliance inspections on whether or not those  repeat the same violation your mind in the vast majority of cases across the country but that's not my question my question isn't whether we have a lot of cases where that is a fact and my question is to do it with guys that i'm kicking in the door on that's embarrassing kind of why isn't that explicit admission that he knew the requirement and he wasn't going to do it  it was what mr rice said that even the president of the united states has to get a driver's uys which sounds to me like it's in the context of this litigation or that in the context of the administrative hearing that's taking place not when he is it is completely dismissed explicitly saying he's going to disobey a t f not because he didn't know that it was required but because he wasn't going to embarrass them until mr rice steps in and explains that nobody's above the law why isn't the head conclusive evidence that he knew the requirement and he didn't want to do it until mr rice  individuals for their status mr wilson's st thought was well they're already there my friends i know them personally i know they're not there are heads of their agencies active on twitter and moreover i'm they're supposed to do background checks didn't want to because i was embarrassed that's not what he said what he says was isn't his initial reaction was i don't want to do this because i know them and i'm embarrassed to do it there's no admission in the record where he a violation well it wasn't just the knowledge meant that he signed it was also the three separate times that he went through training right and a t f agent and then and also the time that he spent operating reznor is missing so it wasn't just oh you sign this form we've got yes it's knowledge there was a lot more to it pleasant and yeah and the they you're supposed to do as opposed to developing a working knowledge of how to put these rules and practice on the ground and make sure that you are complying with all the requirements what we ha on those forms or i know there were i think there were twenty three dollars violations on the disposition forms and there was two hundred and seventy seven dollars violations on each individual firearm that was not kept in the book was an individual i wish well in so looking at those forms there are some instances where mr wilson correctly fills out the form goes through and in every every box box and has all of the information that's required and then there's other instances where he doesn't doesn't the fact that he's sometimes does it correctly forms a failure to record background information for multiple transfers yes and then and wasn't wasn't there an error on all of the  in file folders and on a flash drive rather the a and b book was all the information that was supposed to be on the and the book contained in the file folders and flash dick's sporting goods are s m b hurt all of these cases stand for the proposition that stakes hacking is a consequence of human error that does not show it will this you need something more unique admissions or judgment and that is in part because of the extensive record that's provided to the court in this case for example almost four hundred dollars pages of the luminous evidence and testimony that was provided to the court where the courts make that determination and i would also say that mr wilson attempts to narrowly construed all of the evidence that was considered by the court mr wilson's legal counsel pointed to there need to be prior warning or some type of that mission i would direct respectfully invite the court's attention to the simpson case from the rd circuit in that case there were no good missions from mr simpson and this is that the case where he received his revocation there was no prior warning it was his st and section essentially and in that case  court considered the fact that mr wilson had received training from the a t f through those application inspection that's it since the training that can last for up to four hours where the a t f sits down on a one on one basis with the individual the individual has an opportunity to ask questions of the a t f a t f they go through a very detailed process mr wilson agreed route record that he participated in this process of mississippi for his two thousand and three and two thousand and twelve licenses we have checklist that were provided to the court and you can see honest checklists we went over the a m t but with him we went over the background checks we went over background checks for law enforcement with mr wilson we discussed the four thousand four hundred and forty seven series in a very detailed manner with  well well d let me just start interrupt but i understand the courts may consider other things but my question is whether that's enough either the fact that he signed off three times do we need anything else is enough to show that he generally knew for that st prong as to his knowledge i would say sufficient to establish that whether he was plainly indifferent i have to his requirements that's typically established through some other or some other  evidence before the court whether that be through admissions whether it be through actions or inactions that nd problem wrong is typically established through additional evidence but as far as his knowledge whether he generally knew his requirements i would say certainly o authorized to revoke the license does the fact that there is that there was an administrative decision following an informal administrative hearing how does that affect the way summary from the th circuit american arms in the th th circuit said that the administrative record is entitle to vary and that the administrative record in these types of cases simply by submitting it means that there is no genuine issue of material fact it's up to the licensee at that point even not even before the court on summary judgment to create you present some type of additional evidence creating a chain even if you material back and so i think those are additional pieces of evidence for the court to consider an essentially that you he originally thought perhaps when it was going through these training programs that he didn't need to give background checks to these law enforcement officers and say had already gone through background checks and so maybe he thought could a reasonable fact finder viewing percent error rate was on the form but it was also forth and the record and i would like to clarify for the court we're not talking about whether mr wilson had file folders and a flash drive or found books we're talking about the a t f going to conduct compliance inspection and discovery two hundred and sixty one dollars firearms and physical inventory we have no idea where they came from we're talking about a or fifteen suppressors silencers we don't know where those firearms came from and that's totality of the circumstances here it clearly rises to the level of quite a different if for example you know mr wilson has also conceded that three fire three suppressors were missing he didn't realize those oppressors were missing   which mr wilson didn't do here because he didn't realize that the suppressors were missing regarding his embarrassment mrs council talked touched on this a bit earlier and i'd like to go back to that that's also a clear in france after his embarrassment implies that you understood your legal obligations and you had some discomfort associated with executing those obligations mr wilson expressed his embarrassment at the scene of the mizen specs and a t f investigators and then his own attorney reference at the administrative hearing and then were guarding mr wilson's comments about background checks he told investigators on two separate day on august st and august a i don't know these texts are required i'm not going to conduct them  their high level status but then he can see that he felt he could have background checks on line police officers who are not the heads of love was an agency so i think all of these instances gather together in clear that mr wilson understood background checks were required certify that he sells have the purchaser give the certification these are basic core foundational requirements and when you consider the level of a great distance here the fact that he just since officially had a small arsenal in his physical engine for it he didn't document came from the fact that with the forms there's basic foundation all information that has to be maintained and completed on the forms he's completely disregarded in some instances but then in other instances he can get it properly again given the various categories of violations that's not necessary the a t f only has to identify one single willful violation and clearly in this case all of the violations are willful and that's why i believe the district court didn't go through line what about a contrary argument in that is that we don't know if the a t f actually would have revoked his gun dealers license have a t f realize that it was just this one violation as opposed to all of these violations which wrong with trying to probe we don't know whether the a t f would have exercised its discretion to revoke the license based on one violation all we know is that with the combination of these multiple violations they thought that the combination was  only raises the issue of willfulness before the court it's the quality and quantity of these violations that are committed that clearly rise to the level of training different this is more than mere negligence one hundred percent error rate on forms he didn't know were two hundred and sixty one firearms castle thank you to you but to you both appreciate the arguments morning case will be submitted counselor excuse