Kimberl et al v. Director, Industry Operations Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireamrs and Explosives
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 9/3/14;, The decision of the ATF to revoke Petitioners firearm license is SUSTAINED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final order.cc:counsel (TG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00360-H
CHARLES S. KIMBERL et al
PETITIONER
V.
DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY OPERATIONS
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,
FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is an appeal from the determination of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (“ATF”) that the dealer license of Charles S. Kimberl (“Petitioner”) should be
revoked. The Court reviews the revocation de novo.
The undisputed facts are that Petitioner initially held the firearms license solely in his
own name, but doing business as Danny’s Gun Repair (“Danny’s”). Scott Stoke was a
participant in the business along with Petitioner. Scott Stoke did, in fact, run the day-to-day
operation of Danny’s. Petitioner visited the store only occasionally. After Scott Stoke was
determined to be an actual manager of the Danny’s store, Petitioner added him as a responsible
person on the firearms license. The ATF concluded as the license holder, Petitioner was
responsible for running the business.
Also undisputed are the facts of the violations of federal law. Scott Stoke admits that his
son had access to the store and took various weapons over a several year period. Scott Stoke
also knew that his son was a felon and addict, both of which were not permitted for one working
at a licensed firearm dealer or having access to the weapons sold there. It was, in fact, a
violation of ATF regulations and federal law for Scott Stoke’s son, Wesley, to possess weapons.
All of this is true whether or not Wesley Stoke was an employee.
Petitioner argues that he did not know of these violations and should not be held
responsible for them. He says that as soon as he learned of the federal violations, he terminated
Scott Stoke’s participation in the business.
From the evidence, this Court finds that as licensee, Petitioner had a responsibility to
follow applicable laws in running Danny’s. However, at best he seems to have been completely
indifferent to his responsibilities that Danny’s follow all applicable laws. Whether Wesley Stoke
was an employee or a person allowed complete access to the weapons, is not decisive. There is
no dispute that to both he and Scott Stoke violated federal law. The violations were serious and
systematic. That the violations did not benefit Petitioner is completely irrelevant. In these
circumstances of such clear and flagrant violations, Petitioner cannot escape responsibility
merely by saying that he was unaware of them or that he is immune from the consequences of
their acts. This Court would agree that where Petitioner is completely indifferent to his
responsibilities, he is responsible for the willful and intentional acts of those who operate the
business for him.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the ATF to revoke Petitioner’s firearm
license is SUSTAINED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final order.
September 3, 2014
cc:
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?