John Simpson v. Attorney General United States, 913 F.3d 110

Simpson obtained dealer and manufacturer Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) and met with ATF officials multiple times, signing acknowledgements that he understood regulatory obligations (A&D records, Form 4473, marking manufactured firearms, background checks, licensed premises limits).
ATF conducted a 2014 compliance inspection and found over 400 violations spanning recordkeeping, failure to complete Form 4473s, transfers without background checks, out-of-state and out-of-premises sales, misidentifications in A&D entries, failure to mark manufactured firearms, and failure to file annual manufacturing reports.
ATF revoked Simpson’s FFLs; after an administrative hearing the revocation was affirmed by the ATF Director of Industry Operations as willful violations of the Gun Control Act (GCA).
Simpson petitioned for judicial review under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f); the District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge’s report and granted summary judgment for the ATF, prompting this appeal.
The Third Circuit addressed the applicable willfulness standard and whether Simpson’s violations met it, reviewing the summary-judgment disposition de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the proper willfulness standard for GCA violations?	Simpson contends violations were mistakes/ignorance, not willful.	ATF: willful if licensee knew obligations and purposefully disregarded or was plainly indifferent.	Adopted: willful = knowledge of legal obligation + purposeful disregard or plain indifference.
Did Simpson know his legal obligations as an FFL holder?	Simpson claims inadequate training and fundamental misunderstanding.	ATF points to multiple ATF meetings, seminar attendance, and signed acknowledgements.	Held: Simpson was informed and sometimes complied, so he knew his obligations.
Did Simpson act with purposeful disregard or plain indifference?	Simpson argues inconsistent compliance shows mistakes, not willfulness.	ATF points to the large number, repetition, and deliberate concealment (false A&D entries, out-of-state transfers).	Held: The quantity and nature of violations show plain indifference; willful.
Was revocation authorized based on the record?	Simpson argues revocation was improper given alleged ignorance.	ATF: a single willful violation permits revocation; record shows many.	Held: Revocation affirmed; no genuine dispute of material fact as to willfulness.

Borchardt Rifle Corp. v. Cook, 684 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2012) (adopting knowledge-plus-disregard willfulness test)
Fairmont Cash Mgmt., L.L.C. v. James, 858 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2017) (single willful GCA violation supports revocation)
Armalite, Inc. v. Lambert, 544 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2008) (willfulness standard and deference to uncontested violations)
RSM, Inc. v. Herbert, 466 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2006) (plain indifference shown by repeated violations)
Article II Gun Shop, Inc. v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2006) (willfulness defined by knowledge and disregard)
Willingham Sports, Inc. v. ATF, 415 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2005) (repeated regulatory failures show willfulness)
Perri v. ATF, 637 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1981) (willfulness standard in firearms licensing context)
Lewin v. Blumenthal, 590 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1979) (early adoption of willfulness concept in firearms cases)
Vineland Fireworks Co. v. ATF, 544 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2008) (interpreting willfulness in explosives licensing; willfulness need not imply bad purpose)
Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78 (4th Cir. 2009) (plain indifference can be shown by circumstantial evidence such as many violations)