CalGunLaws.com has sent out a press release from one of their members that illustrates the ATF’s ability to make life miserable for law-abiding gun dealers.

Long Beach, California – “Willful” acts in violation of law by a firearm dealer can carry dire consequences. Criminal prosecution is possible, and under federal law, a single“willful” violation of the Gun Control Act (“GCA”) can result in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (commonly referred to as “ATF”) revoking a dealer’s Federal Firearm License (“FFL”) . . .

As commonly used, “willful” means deliberate, voluntary, or intentional. But words can have a different meaning in the legal world than they do in normal use. “Willful” for example.

Originally, the GCA did not have a “willfulness” requirement. FFLs could be revoked by ATF for even innocent violations. This led to injustice, and, in 1986, ATF abuses led Congress to amend the GCA – specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 923(e)) – “to ensure that licenses are not revoked for inadvertent errors or technical mistakes,” as stated in the Senate Report on the issue.

In amending the law n 1986, the Senate adopted the view of the court in Rich v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 797 (S.D. Ohio 1974), which rejected mere negligence as a standard for revoking an FFL license. Instead, the Senate endorsed the position that “willful” means “purposeful, intentional behavior.”

Although Congress adopted this more limited standard, courts have nonetheless continually struggled to articulate a definitive standard for “willful.” Several distinct definitions have resulted. The court decisions discussed in the MAPC memo show that a dealer’s acts can be considered “willful” when done repeatedly, after prior warnings, and even without any deliberate intent to violate the law.

Thus, in the legal realm, “willful” may include reckless or indifferent acts. Consequently, repeated mistakes and oversights can be considered “willful” even without intent to violate the law involved, especially if they are committed after warning and instruction from ATF. And when courts determine whether a dealer’s acts are“reckless” or “indifferent,” the dealer is at the mercy of the court, because even those terms are not expressly defined.

Dealers would do well to educate themselves by reading the MAPC memo posted at www.michellawyers.com/ffl-resources.

Recommended For You

2 Responses to “Willful” FFL Dealers Can’t Win Against the ATF

  1. The ATF has conclusively determined that there is an “Iron River” of guns flowing from FFLs to American citizens, and they have the 4473s to prove it.

  2. Inadvertent errors are negligent, or not being aware of the risk of a violation of law. If there are negligent or reckless violations of the law and a dealer is warned about them, repeating the violation wouldn’t be reckless or negligent, it would be willful or purposeful. If you know of the risk of a violation and you continue to act in contradiction to the warnings, that looks pretty willful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *