The Gun Shop LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 03 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:10CV01459MLM |
| Parties | THE GUN SHOP LLC AND JILL MCCLELLAND, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("Defendant" or "ATF"). Doc. 13. Plaintiffs The Gun Shop and Jill McClelland (jointly, "Plaintiffs") have filed a Response. Doc. 21. Defendant has filed a Reply. Doc. 22. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Doc. 11.
The court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. See also Fenny v. Dakota, Minn. & E.R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2003) ().
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the court of the basis of its motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. "Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary" will not preclude summary judgment. Id at 248.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Li at 255; Raschick v. Prudent Supply, Inc., 830 F.2d 1497, 1499 (8th Cir. 1987). The court's function is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. However, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party's] position will be insufficient." Li at 252. With these principles in mind, the court turns to an analysis of Defendant's Motion.
Commencing in 1974, Plaintiff Jill McClelland ("Mrs. McClelland") operated Plaintiff The Gun Shop ("The Gun Shop"), a firearms dealer located in New Melle, Missouri, with her husband, James McClelland ("Mr. McClelland"). Def. Facts, ¶ 32; Hr'g Tr., Def. Ex. A at 176.3 The Gun Shop's most recent Application for License, ATF Form 7, dated March 29, 2007, lists Mr. and Mrs. McClelland as The Gun Shop's owners. Hr'g Off. Dec., Def. Ex. B at 235 (citing Def. Ex.7). Plaintiffs allege, in the matter under consideration that, in mid-2008, Mr. McClelland was diagnosed with terminal cancer and unable to participate in any business activities of The Gun Shop and that, at this time, Mrs. McClelland was left with all responsibilities for management of The Gun Shop and with the responsibility of being the sole caregiver for her dying husband. Doc. 1, ¶ 5. Mrs. McClelland has testified that her husband had "always [been] the prime guy to go to" at The Gun Shop; that she felt she needed help running The Gun Shop after her husband became sick; that she hired someone whom she felt "knew the business" to help her; that, at some point, she realized she made a mistake hiring this person and she told him she no longer needed his help; that after that AnnLayton helped her; and that she also had a part-time gunsmith helping her. Def. Ex. A at 182-84.
Plaintiff states that Mr. McClelland died on September 15, 2008, although Defendant disputes the exact date of his death.4 Doc. 1, ¶ 6. Mrs. McClelland testified that, after her husband's death, she became the sole owner of The Gun Shop. Def. Ex. A at 184. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. McClelland's death left Mrs. McClelland in a "state of severe depression unable to concentrate, focus, organize or to fully communicate"; that while Mrs. McClelland had severe depression "a number of unintentional lapses occurred in the required record keeping of The Gun Shop"; that, six months after her husband's death, Mrs. McClelland corrected record keeping mistakes; that, nonetheless, based on a compliance inspection by an ATF Industry Operations Inspector, a Notice of Revocation of License issued for The Gun Shop; and that, by decision, dated July 19, 2010, the Final Notice of Revocation was upheld. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 6-9. See Def. Exs. C at 253-67, D at 268-76. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek review, by this court, of the hearing officer's decision.
As a dealer in guns and ammunition, The Gun Shop must possess a federal firearms license issued under the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"). The GCA is designed to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them. Def. Facts, ¶ 2. Since its inception in 1974, The Gun Shop has applied for, and received, three such licenses: in 1974, 1989, and 2007. Def. Ex. B at 234-36 (citing Def. Ex.7). In each license application, Mrs. McClelland was listed as either a "responsible person" or an owner of the store. Def. Facts, ¶ 3.
As a condition of its license, The Gun Shop is subject to intermittent compliance inspections conducted by ATF. After an inspection in 1981, The Gun Shop was cited for failure to obtain dates of birth from individuals who purchased ammunition. Def. Facts, ¶ 4. An inspection five years later,in 1986, revealed no violations. Def. Facts, ¶ 5. Next, in April 1988, The Gun Shop's license was not cited for any violations, although it was noted that eighteen copies of ATF Form 4473 contained errors. Def. Facts, ¶ 6.
In October 1989, an inspection of The Gun Shop's previous license was conducted and the licensee was not cited for any violations. Four violations, however, were noted upon the October 1989 inspection, including : (1) failure to maintain the licensee's acquisition and disposition book ("A&D Book"); (2) failure to obtain ATF Form 4473; (3) inaccurate completion of ATF Form 4473; and (4) failure to prepare a report for a multiple handgun sale. Def. Facts, ¶ 8 (citing Def. Ex. 7).
In July 1991, a compliance inspection of The Gun Shop's previous license was conducted. Pursuant to the July 1991 inspection the licensee was not cited for any violations but two violations were noted, including two instances where the licensee had completed ATF Form 4473 inaccurately and three instances where The Gun Shop failed to record firearm dispositions in its A&D Book. Def. Facts, ¶ 9 (citing Def. Ex. 7).
In September 1995, a compliance inspection was conducted of The Gun Shop's previous license and the licensee was not cited for any violations and one record keeping violation was disclosed and corrected. Def. Facts, ¶ 11 (citing Def. Ex. 7).
A compliance inspection was next conducted in June 2002 , which inspection resulted in the licensee's being cited for: (1) failure to record the disposition of 1199 repaired firearms in the licensee's A&D Book; (2) failure to record the disposition of 182 sold firearms in the licensee's A&D Book; (3) failure to comply with Illinois' waiting period for a firearm purchase on one occasion; (4) failure to obtain properly completed copies of ATF Form 4473 on ten occasions; and (5) failure to prepare a report of multiple sale on three occasions. Def. Facts, ¶ 12 (citing Def. Ex. 7). Followingthis inspection, ATF held a warning conference. Def. Facts, ¶ 12 (citing Def. Ex. 7). It is not clear whether Mrs. McClelland was present at this conference. A letter, dated June 24, 2002, from the Defendant's Director of Industry Regulations to Mr. McClelland states that Mrs. McClelland was in attendance at this meeting. Def. Ex. 7 at 348. Also, Matthew Corley, an ATF investigator, testified that Mrs. McClelland was present. Def. Ex. A at 39. On the other hand, Mrs. McClelland testified that she was present only at one conference, and as discussed below, it was clear she was present at a conference held in 2007. Def. Ex. A at 50, 176-77.
In September 2005 a compliance inspection was conducted of The Gun Shop's previous license. This inspection resulted in a citation for failure to record the disposition of 48 firearms in the licensee's A&D Book. As a result of the September 2005 compliance inspection another warning conference was held on December 6, 2005.5 Def. Facts, ¶¶ 13-14 (citing Def. Ex 7).
As stated above, The Gun Shop submitted an application for a firearms license in March 2007, on which application Mr. and Mrs. McClelland were both listed as owners of the corporation. The new license was approved. During the period of April 25, 2007, through May 9, 2007, a compliance inspection of The Gun Shop's 2007 license was conducted. Def. Ex. 6 at 324. Pursuant to this inspection, the following citations were issued: (1) failure to obtain and document purchasers' identification on twelve occasions; (2) failure to obtain and record National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") information on fourteen occasions; (3) inaccurate completion of ATF Form 4473 on 443 occasions; (4) failure to report a multiple sale of handguns on one...
To continue reading
Request your trial