Opinion ID: 1227578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: willful violation of the gun control act

Text: The General Store argues that its admitted violations of 27 C.F.R. § 478.125(e) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2) were not willful and therefore cannot be a basis for revocation of its firearms license. Although we affirm the district court's decision that both violations were willful, one willful violation would be sufficient, as a single willful violation is grounds for upholding the revocation. The regulation requires licensed firearms dealers to enter into a record each receipt and disposition of firearms. 27 C.F.R. § 478.125(e). The General Store admits that it violated this requirement by failing to record firearms shipped to and returned from manufacturers and gunsmiths for repair in its Acquisition and Disposition Record. The General Store argues, however, that these violations were not willful because it made a good faith effort to follow ambiguous instructions received from the ATF. These instructions, however, were not so ambiguous as The General Store would have us believe. Following inspections in 2000 and 2001, ATF cited The General Store for violations of § 478.125(e). Both citations instructed The General Store to record acquisitions and dispositions of firearms for repair as required by the Gun Control Act with reference to § 478.125(e), which contains specific instructions on what information must be recorded. Nothing was unclear in the citations. Nonetheless, The General Store points to two supposed ambiguities in the instructions it received for complying with its record keeping duties. First, the citation following the 2001 inspection instructed The General Store to record firearms acquired for repair in some way. On its own, this remark may not be the clearest directive, but it is not ambiguous when combined with the instruction to record firearms as required by the Gun Control Act and § 478.125(e). Section 478.125(e) provides specific information about recording acquisitions that removes any ambiguity about The General Store's record keeping duties. Second, in an apparent attempt to comply with its record keeping duties following the 2001 inspection, The General Store began using a commercially-printed Firearms Repair Log to track firearms acquired for repair. The Firearms Repair Log has two instructions on its cover that the General Store views as ambiguous. BE SURE TO LOG IN ALL FIREARMS RECEIVED FOR REPAIR AND LOG THEM OUT ON DELIVERY is printed in large type. The cover also warns, If any firearm logged into this Gunsmith's Firearms Repair Log is delivered to anyone other than the person who brought it in for repair, an entry MUST be made in your permanent Firearms Acquisition and Disposition Book (Bound Book), and a Form 4473 filled out and filed just as though the gun had been sold. The General Store argues that this warning paragraph modifies the log in all firearms instruction, which therefore applies only to firearms delivered to anyone other than the person who brought it in for repair. The General Store's reliance on the Firearms Repair Log is misplaced. The General Store must follow the record keeping requirements as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe, 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A), not the instructions printed on a commercial publication that it chooses to use. But, in any event, the instructions in the Firearms Repair Log are not ambiguous. The two separate instructions are independent: the instruction to log in all firearms is printed in larger font diagonally across the page. The warning, which is separate and contained in smaller print at the bottom of the page, by its own terms applies only to firearms that have already been logged into the Firearms Repair Log; the warning does not modify the obligation to log the firearms in the first instance. Finally, we question the consistency of The General Store's good faith effort to comply with § 478.125(e). By beginning to use the Firearms Repair Log after the 2001 inspection, The General Store demonstrated some effort to meet its obligations. But § 478.125(e) requires licensees to maintain, not just start, accurate firearms logs. An initial use of a log in 2001, followed by two years of inaccurate or incomplete records leading up to the 2003 inspection, demonstrates The General Store's indifference to its legal obligation. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that The General Store willfully violated § 478.125(e). The district court also determined that The General Store violated § 922(b)(2), which prohibits firearms sales that violate state law, by failing to comply with a Washington requirement that firearms dealers must send a copy of all handgun applications to the police or sheriff of the applicant's place of residence. See Wash. Rev.Code § 9.41.090(5). Instead of following this requirement, The General Store submitted copies of handgun applications to the Spokane Police Department, regardless of the applicant's residence. The General Store contends that its admitted violation of § 922(b)(2) was not willful because The General Store did not know its obligation and had reasonable cause to believe that the purchase ... would not be in violation of such State law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2). The General Store does not dispute that the form it used for processing handgun applications unambiguously states, [s]end this original to the Chief of Police of the municipality or the Sheriff of the county of which the purchaser is a resident. In addition, the district court found that The General Store received written notice of the requirement in the letters sent by the ATF in 1998. [2] The evidence supports the district court's determination that The General Store knew its obligations under § 922(b)(2). The General Store also argues that it had reasonable cause to believe that the purchase ... would not be in violation of such State law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2), because neither the ATF nor the Spokane Police Department informed The General Store that it was sending the forms to the wrong official. This argument is not persuasive. The dealer, not the ATF or the police department, bears the reporting obligation. The ATF's failure to cite every violation during prior inspectionsparticularly when faced with a large number of missing firearmsand the Spokane Police Department's inaction do not demonstrate a good faith belief given The General Store's repeated failure to follow a clear duty. The district court did not err in finding that The General Store violated § 922(b)(2).