Opinion ID: 429511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant's Shifted Burden

Text: 19 While the inadequacy of the factual basis despite the absence of a genuine issue as to a material fact warrants denial of the summary judgment motion in this case, appellant's rebuttal evidence regarding the statutory language and applicable regulation demonstrates that the district court's finding of no material issue of fact may have been premature. 20 The statute's definition of explosives is sufficiently broad to include lead azide within its purview. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 841(d). Indeed, the parties have so stipulated. Section 842(a) makes it unlawful to import, manufacture or deal in explosives without a license. This licensing requirement does not apply, however, to small arms ammunition and components thereof. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 845(a)(4). 21 The OCCA defines neither small arms ammunition nor components thereof. Section 847, however, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 847. Rules promulgated pursuant to such a broad authorization are legislative in character and have the force and effect of law. See Mourning v. Family Publ. Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1660-61, 36 L.Ed.2d 318, 329 (1973); K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 7:11 (2d ed. 1979). 22 The Secretary has delegated its rule-making authority under Sec. 847 to the ATF. In defining ammunition, the ATF has indicated that the term shall include percussion caps. 27 C.F.R. Sec. 55.11 (1983). Furthermore, the Bureau has provided that [t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' do not exclude other things not named which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope of the term defined. Id. 23 In a letter addressed to this court following oral argument, 4 counsel for appellant argued that Devastator ammunition is within the same general class as percussion caps and, therefore, falls within the statutory exception for small arms ammunition. Counsel did not argue this point in his brief or at oral argument. Indeed, he erroneously maintained that 27 C.F.R. Sec. 55.11 was inapplicable to this case. Bingham's President testified at the summary judgment hearing, however, that he believed Devastator ammunition was like percussion caps, and that he had a document from the Department of Defense which classifies as a percussion cap ammunition extremely similar [to] and with the same compounds as Devastator ammunition. It would seem unreasonable to penalize Bingham simply because its counsel was less familiar with the applicable regulations than was its President.