Borchardt Rifle Corp. v. Cook
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14084
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Borchardt Rifle Corporation, owned and operated by Albert Story, was licensed in 2002 and later had its license revoked by the ATF in 2008 after a second inspection.
- The 2002 inspection identified four violations including improper record-keeping and Form 4473 deficiencies; Story acknowledged the mistakes and stated they were corrected.
- The 2007 inspection revealed twelve violations with many repeat infractions; 43 of 52 Form 4473s contained errors and several violations mirrored the 2002 findings.
- The ATF concluded that the repeat violations after initial warnings demonstrated willful violations of the Gun Control Act, and revoked the license based on these findings.
- Story petitioned for de novo review in district court; the district court granted summary judgment upholding the revocation, holding that the violations showed plain indifference to known legal obligations.
- The central issue on appeal was whether willfulness under 18 U.S.C. § 923(e) could be shown by circumstantial evidence and past violations, not solely by direct evidence of state of mind.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the willfulness standard under § 923(e)? | Story argues for a traditional direct-state-of-mind standard. | ATF argued for plain indifference comparable to other circuits. | Plain indifference to known obligations applies. |
| Can circumstantial evidence prove willfulness under § 923(e)? | Evidence must show the dealer’s state of mind directly. | Circumstantial evidence can establish willfulness when supported by warnings and violations. | Circumstantial evidence suffices to prove plain indifference. |
| May past violations after notice establish current willfulness? | Prior violations are not probative of current intent. | Repeated violations after notice show purposeful disregard. | Yes; repeated past violations after being advised show plain indifference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armalite, Inc. v. Lambert, 544 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2008) (willful violation can be shown by knowledge and purposeful disregard)
- RSM, Inc. v. Herbert, 466 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2006) (plain indifference toward known obligations satisfies willfulness)
- Willingham Sports, Inc. v. ATF, 415 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2005) (repeated violation after warning shows willfulness)
- Article II Gun Shop, Inc. v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2006) (must prove dealer knew obligations and disregarded or was plainly indifferent)
- Lewin v. Blumenthal, 590 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1979) (plain indifference can satisfy willfulness)
- Perri v. ATF, 637 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1981) (willful violation shown by knowledge and disregard)
- United States v. Brown, 996 F.2d 1049 (10th Cir. 1993) (state-of-mind evidence often inferred (willfulness rarely direct))