News

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Revocation Of Maryland Gun Dealer’s License


Gun Dealer Showed “Profound Indifference” to Federal Regulations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2009

Baltimore, Maryland – The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today issued a published opinion upholding the decision of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the firearms dealer’s license of American Arms International and deny the dealer’s separate application for a license in the name of a new company.

“This appellate opinion affirms the important principle that any firearms dealer who ignores ATF’s warnings and fails to comply with the law can and should lose his license to sell guns,” said U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein. “A gun dealer cannot excuse its repeated failures to comply with known regulations that ATF brings to its attention by claiming mere negligence.”

“Our goal has always been to educate Federal Firearms Licensees and promote voluntary compliance with federal regulations,” says ATF Special Agent in Charge Theresa R. Stoop. “However, in this instance Gilbert failed to account for 420 weapons demonstrating a willful disregard for these regulations.”

The Fourth Circuit noted that Gilbert had failed to account for more than 420 weapons and concluded that “he has shown a profound indifference to the ATF’s numerous efforts to bring him into compliance.” The court concluded that “where a licensee receives official warning that his actions violate the [Gun Control Act] and his record of compliance does not change (or, in these cases, gets worse), it is permissible to infer ‘wilfulness.’” The Fourth Circuit relied upon the precedent of RSM, Inc. v. Herbert, 466 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2006), a similar case litigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein thanked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for their work on the case. Mr. Rosenstein commended Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariana Wright Arnold, who is representing the United States in the litigation.

 

 

Return to Top