Opinion ID: 788155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willful Violation of the GCA

Text: 6 The GCA prohibits a licensed dealer from selling handgun ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1); 27 C.F.R. § 178.99(b). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(e), the government may revoke a firearms license if the dealer willfully violates a statute or regulation governing the firearm industry. 7 In the instant matter, it is undisputed that at the time of the ammunition sale to Mr. Rains, appellant knew of its obligation under the GCA not to sell handgun ammunition to underage persons. Despite this fact, appellant maintains that it did not willfully violate the GCA because the sale was not done with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 190, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998). The district court rejected this argument, finding that appellant willfully violated the GCA (1) because it had knowledge of the obligation not to sell handgun ammunition to underage persons at the time of the sale to Mr. Rains, and (2) because of repeated violations of that obligation. We agree. 8 The majority of circuits, including the Sixth Circuit, have consistently held that where a licensee understands his or her legal obligations under the GCA, yet fails to abide by those obligations, his or her license can be denied or revoked on the basis that the dealer willfully violated the GCA. See Al's Jewelry & Loan, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, No. 95-1765, 1996 WL 683528, at - (6th Cir. Nov.22, 1996)(denial of license affirmed upon finding petitioner willfully violated GCA because he knew of record keeping obligations yet failed to abide by them); Perri v. Dep't of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 637 F.2d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.1981)(To establish grounds for revocation of a license, the government must demonstrate a willful violation of the Act. That is established when a dealer understands the requirements of the law, but knowingly fails to follow them or was indifferent to them.)(citing Lewin v. Blumenthal, 590 F.2d 268, 269 (8th Cir.1979)); Stein's Inc. v. Blumenthal, 649 F.2d 463, 467 (7th Cir.1980)(The [GCA] does not require bad purpose or evil motive before a license may be revoked or a renewal application denied. The Secretary need only prove that the petitioner knew of his legal obligation and purposefully disregarded or was plainly indifferent to the recordkeeping requirements.)(quotation marks omitted); Prino v. Simon, 606 F.2d 449, 451 (4th Cir.1979)(Under the GCA, in a civil context, [a] conscious, intentional, deliberate, voluntary decision properly is described as willful, regardless of venal motive.) (quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, it has been recognized that a single violation of the GCA is a sufficient basis for denying an application or revoking a firearms dealer's license. Cook v. Herbert, No. 03-00042, 2004 WL 40525, at  (W.D.Va. Jan. 5, 2004); see also 3 Bridges, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 216 F.Supp.2d 655, 659 (E.D.Ky.2002); DiMartino v. Buckles, 129 F.Supp.2d 824, 827 (D.Md.2001), aff'd by unpublished order, DiMartino v. Buckley, No. 01-1166, 2001 WL 1127288, at  (4th Cir. Sept.25, 2001). 9 In the present case, we do not believe the bad purpose standard set forth in Bryan for determining willful conduct is controlling with regard to the district court's standard defining willful violation. The Supreme Court's decision in Bryan affirmed a conviction on the basis of the defendant's willful violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1), which forbids dealing in firearms without a license. In particular, the Court upheld jury instructions that read: A person acts willfully if he acts intentionally and purposely and with the intent to do something the law forbids, that is, with the bad purpose to disobey or to disregard the law. 10 Id. at 190, 118 S.Ct. 1939 (emphasis added). The Court, however, cautioned that the word willfully has many meanings, and that [a]s a general matter, when used in a criminal context, a `willful act' is one undertaken with a bad purpose. Id. 524 U.S. at 191, 118 S.Ct. 1939. Moreover, the Bryan opinion acknowledges that a disregard of a known legal obligation is sufficient to establish a willful violation[.] Id. at 197-98, 118 S.Ct. 1939. 11 Nevertheless, appellant relies solely upon Bryan in arguing that a revocation under the GCA requires proof of bad intent. This particular argument is unsupported by case law in this circuit or elsewhere. To the contrary, there is a wealth of case law, previously cited, which supports the district court's reasoning that Appellant willfully violated section 922(b)(1) because of its undisputed knowledge of the law at the time of the ammunition sale to Aaron Rains.