United States of America v. 6 Firearms, Accessories and Ammunition

Filing 27

ORDER Granting Judgment to Plaintiff by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (HR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
NO. C13-5969BJR
)
v.
)
) ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT
6 FIREARMS, ACCESSORIES AND
) TO PLAINTIFF
AMMUNITION
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, the United States of America (hereinafter “the Government”) commenced this
civil action in rem to forfeit six firearms, accessories, and ammunition (hereinafter “the
firearms”) purchased by Claimant Beverly Taylor. 1 The Government alleges that the firearms are
subject to forfeiture under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 because Ms. Taylor purchased
the firearms as part of a “straw purchase,” and in doing so, violated sections 922(a)(6) and
924(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Ms. Taylor denies the Government’s charges and counters that she is the
lawful owner of the firearms.
A bench trial was held before this Court on May 19, 2015. Matthew Thomas appeared on
behalf of the Government; Beverly Taylor appeared pro se. The Court heard testimony from:
Heidi Wallace, Special Agent Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms; Jason Viada, Detective
Sergeant; James Rogers, owner of Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop; Joseph Lujan, employee of Doc
1

The six firearms are: (1) Colt M4 Rifle, s/n: LE130329; (2) Hi Point Model 4595 Rifle,
s/n: R26814; (3) Ruger Model SR40C Pistol, s/n: 343-46304; (4) Beretta Model Nano Pistol, s/n:
NUO35840; (5) Hi Point Model C9 Pistol, s/n: P1736847; and (6) Zastava AK-47 Rifle, s/n: NPAP005021.
1

Neeley’s Gun Shop; Don Carey, owner of Blue Mountain Gunworks; and Ms. Taylor. In
addition, the Court has reviewed and considered all exhibits admitted into evidence.
II.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Taylor is a septuagenarian who lives with her adult son, Richard Rankich, in Port
Angeles, Washington. Rankich is a convicted felon, and as such, is prohibited from purchasing
or possessing firearms. TR 20-21. Ms. Taylor is aware of Rankich’s felony convictions and of
the fact that he is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun. TR 36, 137. Rankich also
suffers from significant health issues. TR 125. Ms. Taylor testified that Rankich is diabetic and
his kidneys are failing. Id. He also has gastro paresis, high blood pressure, and retinopathy. Id.
Ms. Taylor fears that Rankich will not live much longer. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Ms.
Taylor suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome in her left hand that caused her hand to swell and
shake. TR 43, 67.
The parties stipulate that Ms. Taylor purchased five of the firearms between September
22, 2012 and April 13, 2013. She made the purchases at Walmart, Doc Neeley’s Cowboy Guns
and Gear, and Blue Mountain Gunworks, all located in Port Angeles, Washington. Dkt. No. 15 at
3. She purchased the sixth firearm in February, 2013 from Gold Mountain Arms in Poulsbo,
Washington. Id. There is no dispute that for each of the purchases, Ms. Taylor submitted
paperwork on which she affirmed that she is the “actual buyer” of the guns.
III.
A.

TRIAL EVIDENCE

Witness Testimony

Jim Rogers, the owner of Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop, testified on behalf of the Government.
Rogers stated that his first contact with Ms. Taylor was on February 2, 2013 when she and
Rankich came to his store to purchase a Ruger SR40C. TR 73; P. Ex. 12. Rogers testified that at

2

the time of the purchase, Ms. Taylor “seemed very, very shaky,” so much so that he assumed
either she was ill, “or else she was really, really nervous.” TR 78. According to Rogers, Rankich
appeared to be directing the gun purchase by pointing out the Ruger SR40C as the gun that Ms.
Taylor should buy. TR 75. Rogers testified that he was “a little bit surprised [that Ms. Taylor was
buying that gun] because the SR40C is a compact, really powerful handgun for a lady.” TR 75.
He elaborated that he felt the Ruger SR40C would be “a real recoil monster for her. [He] didn’t
see her being able to handle the gun real well.” TR 78.
Rogers testified that the circumstances of the purchase (i.e., Ms. Taylor’s shaky
appearance, Rankich appearing to direct the purchase, and the type of gun purchased) led him to
question whether Ms. Taylor was really purchasing the gun for Rankich. TR 75, 78. He claims he
asked her whether she was buying the gun for Rankich, but she replied that the gun was for her.
TR 75-76. To that end, Ms. Taylor filled out the required ATF Form 4473, indicating at Question
11.a. that she was the actual buyer of the gun. TR 77; P. Ex. 10. Nevertheless, Rogers was
concerned enough about the gun purchase that he reached out to the Port Angeles Chief of Police
as well as to a friend who is an agent with the United States Border Patrol to discuss his
concerns. TR 80.
The next time Rogers saw Ms. Taylor and Rankich was on April 3, 2013. He testified that
they came into his shop together and purchased a Beretta 9-millimeter handgun. TR 75; P. Ex.
13. Rogers testified that “Mr. Rankich told [Ms. Taylor] that that’s the gun that she wanted to
buy.” TR 75. Once again, Ms. Taylor filled out the required Form 4473 and indicated that she
was the actual buyer of the gun at Question 11.a. P. Ex. 10.
Rogers testified that Rankich then came into the store by himself on April 9th and
purchased ammunition for a 9-millimeter handgun. TR 74; P. Ex. 15. Also around April 9th,

3

Rogers received a telephone call from Rankich in which Rankich asked Rogers if he would be
willing to accept the transfer of an AK-47 from an out-of-state gun dealer. 2 Rogers testified that
by this time, he had been informed that Rankich is a convicted felon and is not able to lawfully
purchase a gun. TR 76. As such, Rogers declined to accept the transfer of the AK-47. Id.
Rogers then testified that Ms. Taylor and Rankich came into his gun shop together later
on the evening of April 9th to purchase ammunition for an AK-47. TR 79. Rogers claims that at
that time, Rankich stated that he “personally owned a Hi-Point carbine and an AR.” Id. Rogers
further testified that while in the gun shop that evening, Rankich noticed a Hi-Point pistol and
asked Ms. Taylor to purchase it. Id. Rogers stated that Rankich later changed his mind and they
left the shop without purchasing the gun. Id. However, according to Rogers, they returned the
next day and ordered the pistol. TR 80; P. Ex. 14. Rogers testified that once again he was
concerned that the “purchase was not for [Ms. Taylor],” but rather, for Rankich. Id.
Next, Don Carey, the owner of Blue Mountain Gunworks, testified. Carey testified that in
April 2013, he was contacted by a gun wholesaler who notified him that a Zastava semiautomatic AK was being transferred to his shop for pick up by Ms. Taylor and Rankich. TR 90,
He testified that when Ms. Taylor and Rankich arrived the next morning to pick up the gun,
Rankich made Carey feel “uncomfortable” because Rankich was wearing a hooded sweatshirt
pulled over his head and his hands were in his pockets. TR 91. He also testified that Rankich was
acting “erratic,” “nervous, and very talkative” Id. He said Rankich was “just jabbering, kind of
talking about gun-related stuff, but it really wasn’t pertinent to the situation. And he kept
interjecting, so much so that [Carey] had to ask [Rankich] to stop talking.” TR 92. Carey stated

2

If a gun is purchased from an out-of-state licensed gun dealer, federal law requires that
the gun be transferred to an in-state licensed dealer before the gun can be transferred to the
purchaser.
4

that the situation made him feel uneasy and while he admitted that he “didn’t really have a clear
signal that this was a straw purchase,” he was uncomfortable enough that he asked Ms. Taylor to
sign an affidavit (in addition to the required ATF Form 4473) to verify that she was purchasing
the gun for herself. TR 94. Carey said that once Ms. Taylor signed both the Form 4473 and the
additional affidavit, he felt “comfortable enough to go ahead” with the transaction. TR 95.
Detective Sergeant Jason Viada testified next for the Government. Viada is a sergeant
with the Port Angeles Police Department and is responsible for supervising the Olympic
Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team (“OPNET”). TR 98. At some point in April, OPNET
was contacted by a US Border Patrol agent about Ms. Taylor’s gun purchases. Id. OPNET
learned that Ms. Taylor was scheduled to pick up a Hi-Point pistol from Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop
on April 15, 2013. TR 99. Viada went to the vicinity of the gun shop and waited for Ms. Taylor
to arrive. Id. He testified that he observed Ms. Taylor and Rankich enter and later exit the gun
shop. TR 102. He further testified that Rankich was carrying a box. Id. He then observed them
enter Ms. Taylor’s car where she and Rankich appeared to “handl[e] the gun back and forth
between the two of them.” TR 103. Viada testified that he and his OPNET team followed Ms.
Taylor’s car until she eventually arrived at home, at which point they detained Ms. Taylor and
arrested Rankich. TR 104. They then searched Ms. Taylor’s car and home. TR 105. In the car,
Viada found a target stand, a map to a local shooting area known as “Slab Camp,” a tag for
servicing a firearm, and several receipts for gun related paraphernalia. Id. In the house, the
OPNET team located the six firearms subject of this lawsuit and various shooting-related items
and ammunition on and around the dining room table. TR 107. They also located a white box
that Viada is “nearly certain” is the same box Rankich carried out of Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop. Id.

5

In addition, they found a shipping receipt for a Crimson Trace laser sight, specifically for a
Beretta Nano 9-millimeter sidearm. TR 108. The receipt was made out to Rankich. Id.
Heidi Wallace, a Special Agent for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm Agency, also
testified on behalf of the Government. She testified that she was in Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop on
April 15, 2013 and observed Ms. Taylor purchase the Hi-Point pistol. TR 26. Wallace testified
that she observed Ms. Taylor and Rankich enter the gun shop together and speak with Roger. TR
27. She further observed both of them speak with the gun shop employees while Ms. Taylor
filled out the paperwork for the gun purchase. Id. She testified that, from her observation, Ms.
Taylor did not appear to have difficulty hearing the gun shop employees. 3 Id. Wallace testified
that after Ms. Taylor finished filling out the paperwork, she observed Rankich pick up the white
box containing the Hi-Point pistol and walk out the door with Ms. Taylor. TR 28.
Wallace further testified that she interviewed Ms. Taylor after she was detained by
OPNET. Wallace stated that during the interview Ms. Taylor admitted that she knew that
Rankich is a convicted felon and is not allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. TR 36. She also
admitted that Rankich accompanied her when she purchased her guns. TR 33, 40. Wallace
testified that Ms. Taylor consistently stated that the guns belong to her. TR 33-35. According to
Wallace, Ms. Taylor told her that she purchased the guns because (1) they “were good deals,” (2)
“felt good in her hand,” (3) for protection, and (4) as an investment. TR 33-35, 52, 59. Wallace
further testified that Ms. Taylor told her that Rankich would research the guns online and tell her
which guns were a “good deal.” TR 33, 48. Based on this advice, Ms. Taylor would purchase the
guns. Wallace claims that Ms. Taylor admitted that Rankich accompanied her when she went
target shooting and that Ms. Taylor told her Rankich likes to shoot. TR 41, 53, 70. Wallace
3

As discussed below, Ms. Taylor testified that one of the reasons Rankich accompanied her to the
gun shops is that she is hard of hearing and, as such, needed Rankich there to assist her with the
transactions.

6

further “believe[d] [that Ms. Taylor] said that [Rankich] did hold [the gun] for her because of her
hand being the way that I had seen it that day.” TR 56. However, Wallace also testified that Ms.
Taylor told her that Rankich did not shoot the guns; rather, Ms. Taylor “was the one who fired
the weapon.” TR 62.
During this interview, Wallace noticed that Ms. Taylor’s left hand was swollen and that
she appeared to be trying to keep the hand elevated. TR 43, 61. Wallace stated that she expressed
skepticism to Ms. Taylor that she could fire the guns because of the condition of her hand, but,
according to Wallace, Ms. Taylor reassured her that she could fire the weapons. TR 61.
The final witness for the Government was Joseph Gilbert, an employee at Doc Neeley’s
Gun Shop. TR 115. Gilbert testified that Rankich brought the Ruger SR40 into the gun shop for
cleaning on February 25, 2013. TR 116. He identified a two-part tag as the receipt that he gave
Rankich for the cleaning. Id.; P. Ex. 24l. On the back of the tag Gilbert wrote down the gun type,
serial number, and the telephone number for the gun shop. Id. He also listed Rankich as the gun
owner on the receipt. Id.
Ms. Taylor testified on her own behalf. She testified that she did not purchase the guns
for her son; rather, she purchased the guns for her protection and as an investment. TR 124, 130.
She claimed that she would become frightened when she was home alone because “[e]verybody
knows that we have a lot of stuff,” so she bought the guns so she could “feel safe.” TR 130. She
also testified that she was aware of the news coverage of recent shootings and the move to limit
gun ownership in light of these shootings. TR 124. She was concerned that it would become
difficult to purchase guns and/or ammunition. Id. Therefore, she decided to purchase the guns
and ammunition as an investment. Id. She testified that Rankich is gravely ill and that she
planned to sell the guns after he dies in order to pay for his cremation. TR 131. “Why would I

7

buy guns for a dying man? I bought them for me so I could sell them and pay for [his]
cremation.” Id.
She testified that in order for her to buy a gun, it “had to be two things. It had to fit in
[her] hand, and it had to be the right price.” TR 126. She further testified that Rankich would
research firearms and their prices and would let her know which guns were a “good deal.” She
acknowledged that several of the guns she purchased had a lot of power and could be seen as an
odd choice for someone her age, but she claimed that she never “intend[ed] to fire them,” she
“was merely collecting [them].” Id.; see also TR 124 (stating that she never intended to fire the
Zastava AK-47, the Nano, or the Hi-Point pistol, but instead “those guns simply became
collection items.”).
She conceded that Rankich was with her each time she purchased a gun, but she claimed
it is because she is hard of hearing and needed him there to help her understand the conversation.
TR 85. She disputed that Rankich carried the Rugar SR40C out of Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop as the
Government witnesses had testified and the surveillance video appeared to show (surveillance
video shot outside Doc Neeley’s Gun Shop was entered into evidence by the Government, P. Ex.
27). She claimed that the video did not show that just before they exited the gun shop, Rankich
took the Rugar out of the box, handed it to her, and she put it in her sweater pocket. TR 131.
Then, before she dropped him off, he handed the box back to her, and she put the gun back into
it. TR 131-132.
She also admitted that Rankich went target shooting with her, but only to “instruct” her
on how to shoot. TR 126. She further testified that while she told Wallace that Rankich enjoyed
shooting guns, she meant that he shot air pistols and paint guns. TR 69. She further claimed that

8

Rankich has been selling the air pistols and paint guns “one by one because he can’t use them
anymore” since he became too ill. TR 127.
In addition, she testified that the Crimson spotting scope Rankich purchased was a
birthday gift to her so she “could see where she was shooting.” TR 122. Lastly, she testified that
Rankich is very possessive of his stuff. TR 129. “Everything he owns” is kept on his side of the
house. Id. “If [the guns] were his, he’d have had them in his room, trust me.” TR 129-130.
B.

Exhibits

The Government’s exhibits, 1-24(a-m) and 25-29, and Ms. Taylor’s exhibits 50-78 were
admitted at trial. Key exhibits include the following:
Government (“P.”) Exhibit 1: Copies of Rankich’s Felony Judgment and Sentence
reports;
P. Exhibit 10: An executed ATF Form 4473 for each firearm purchase;
P. Exhibits 12-14: Invoices from Doc Neeley’s for the purchase of the Ruger SR40C,
Beretta Nano 9mm, and Hi Point 9mm pistol;
P. Exhibit 17: Signed Affidavit of Ms. Taylor dated April 13, 2013 regarding the transfer
of the Zastava AK 47 through Blue Mountain Gunworks;
P. Exhibit 19: Map to “Slab Camp”;
P. Exhibit 21: Receipt from PLG to Rankich for Crimson Trace LG483 Laserguard for
Beretta Nano 9mm Laser Sight dated April 6, 2013;
P. Exhibit 24a: Photographs Bates Stamped 000174, 000178 showing Rankich carrying a
white box outside Doc Neeley’s Gun shop;
P. Exhibit 24c: Photograph Bates Stamped 000247 showing Ms. Taylor’s dining room
table with firearms on and/or around it;

9

P. Exhibit 24l: Photographs Bates Stamped 000242-244 of cleaning receipt dated
February 25, 2013 for the Ruger SR40C listing Rankich as the “owner”;
P. Exhibit 27: Video surveillance of exterior of Doc Neeley’s taken on April 15, 2013;
Defendant’s (“D.”) Exhibits 61: Ms. Taylor’s 2011 federal tax refund;
D. Exhibit 62: USbank Statement dated July 12, 2012;
D. Exhibit 63: A claim check from Combined Insurance Company of America dated
January 14, 2013;
D. Exhibit 64: Ms. Taylor’s 2012 federal tax refund;
D. Exhibit 65: A claim check from Combined Insurance Company of America dated
April 12, 2013; and
Defendant’s Exhibit 67: a diagram of Ms. Taylor’s home.
IV.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, “the burden of proof is on the
Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [firearms are] subject to
forfeiture[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1); see United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. Currency, 303 F.3d
1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002) (“CAFRA transferred the burden of proof from the claimant to the
government and required the government to establish forfeiture by a preponderance of the
evidence rather than by the lower probable cause standard [.]”). If the Government meets its
burden of proof regarding forfeiture, the burden shifts to Ms. Taylor to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence that she is an “innocent” owner of the firearms. 18 U.S.C. §
983(d); see United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). An
“innocent owner” is one who “did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture,” or “upon
learning of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under

10

the circumstances to terminate such use of the property. Id. at § 983(d)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). See United
States v. 493,850 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, the Government asserts that the firearms are subject to civil forfeiture under 18
U.S.C. § 924(d)(1), which provides:
Any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in any knowing violation of... [
922(a)(6) or 924(a)(1)(A)] … shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture …[.]
Sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A), in turn, describe separate statutory offenses. United States
v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 876-77 (9th Cir. 1977). Section 922(a)(6) makes it unlawful:
for any person in connection with the acquisition … of any firearm … from a …
licensed dealer … knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written
statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented
identification, intended or likely to deceive such … dealer … with respect to any
fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm.
Section 924(a)(1)(A) establishes a criminal penalty for anyone who “knowingly makes any false
statements or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in
the records of a person licensed under this chapter.”
Therefore, in order to establish that the firearms are subject to civil forfeiture under
Section 924(d)(1), the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms.
Taylor: (1) knowingly made, (2) a false or fictitious written statement in connection with the
purchase of firearms, (3) intended to deceive or likely to deceive a licensed firearms dealer, (4)
and the false statement was a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or disposition of the
firearm. United States v. Ortiz, 318 F.3d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 2003). Alternatively, the
Government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the gun shop owners
were federally licensed firearms dealers at the time the events occurred; (2) Ms. Taylor made a
false statement or representation in a record that the licensed firearms dealers were required by
federal law to maintain; and (3) Ms. Taylor made the false statement with knowledge of its
11

falsity.” United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 316–17 (4th Cir.2013), aff’d ___ U.S. ____,
134 S.Ct. 2259 (2014).
VI.

DISCUSSION

The Federal Government regulates firearm sales by licensed firearms dealers through the
Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. The Act provides a detailed scheme to enable a
federally licensed firearms dealer to verify, at the point of sale, whether a potential buyer may
lawfully own a gun. To that end, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(hereinafter “ATF”) developed Form 4473 for gun sales. Form 4473 requires the purchaser to
provide certain identifying information. The Form also lists all the factors disqualifying a person
from gun ownership, and asks the would-be buyer whether any of them apply. Significant to this
case, Question 11.a. on the Form asks:
Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?
Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on
behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot
transfer the firearm(s) to you.
The accompanying instructions for that question provide:
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the
actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise
acquiring the firearm for yourself.... You are also the actual transferee/buyer if
you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL
TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a
firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr.
Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must
answer “NO” to question 11.a.
ATF Form 4473 (emphasis in original); P. Ex. 10. After completing the Form, the purchaser
must sign a certification declaring her answers “true, correct and complete.” Id. That certification
provides that the signator “understand[s] that making any false ... statement” respecting the

12

transaction—and, particularly, “answering ‘yes’ to question 11.a. if [she is] not the actual
buyer”—is a crime “punishable as a felony under Federal law.” Id.
Here, Ms. Taylor answered “yes” to question 11.a each time she purchased one of the
firearms subject to this civil forfeiture. The Government charges that each time she answered
“yes” to question 11.a, she violated Sections 922(a)(6) and/or 924(a)(1)(A) because she was not
the “actual buyer” of the firearms. Rather, the Government argues, Ms. Taylor was really buying
the guns for Rankich who could not legally own the guns. Ms. Taylor counters that she answered
question 11.a truthfully because she purchased the guns for herself.
The Court finds that the Government has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Ms. Taylor knowingly made a false statement (i.e. answering “yes” to question 11.a on Form
4473) that was intended to deceive a licensed firearm dealer and the false statement was material
to the sale of the firearms. Specifically, the Court finds that while Ms. Taylor committed the
physical act of purchasing the firearms (indeed, with her own money), the purchases were made
on behalf of her son. Rankich researched the guns, arranged for at least one gun to be transferred
to a gun shop, went to the gun shops with Ms. Taylor, pointed out the guns, asked the gun shop
employees about the guns, decided that those were the guns he wanted, and then instructed Ms.
Taylor to purchase them. He then picked up at least one of the guns and carried it out of the gun
shop. 4 Rankich purchased ammunition, a laser sighting scope, and other paraphernalia for the
guns. He also went shooting with Ms. Taylor. Lastly, Rankich took at least one of the guns in for
cleaning and indicated that he was the owner of the gun. 5

4

The Court does not find credible Ms. Taylor’s testimony that she had removed the gun
from the box and put it in her pocket and that, therefore, Rankich was carrying an empty box.
5
The Court notes that some of the testimonial evidence may contain hearsay. However,
Ms. Taylor failed to object to the testimony. Thus, the Government had no opportunity to explain
why the testimony did not constitute hearsay, or if it did, whether an exception applied to the
13

Ms. Taylor does not dispute that the gun shop owners are federally licensed dealers. Nor
does she dispute that she was aware that Rankich could not legally purchase the guns himself,
thereby making her false statement to question 11.a on the 4473 Forms material to the sale of the
firearms. Accordingly, the Government has met its burden of proof to establish violations of
Sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A).
Further, this Court concludes that Ms. Taylor is not an “innocent owner” of the firearms.
In order to establish this defense, Ms. Taylor would have to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that she “did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture,” or “upon learning of the
conduct giving rise to forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the
circumstances to terminate such use of the property.” § 983(d)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). Ms. Taylor has not
met her burden. The Court acknowledges that she claims to have purchased the firearms for her
protection and as an investment. However, the Court does not find this testimony credible. Her
testimony was inconsistent in this regard. For instance, she stated that she purchased the guns
because they “felt good in her hand,” yet she testified that she never intended to fire the guns.
Moreover, several of the guns required two hands to shoot (because of their weight and size, as
well as the recoil) and several witnesses noted, and indeed Ms. Taylor conceded, that her left
hand was significantly injured at the time of the purchases. Other times Ms. Taylor testified that
she purchased the guns as an investment, but then indicated that she would sell the guns to pay
for Rankich’s cremation. Finally, she stated that she purchased the guns for her protection, but
testimony. “[W]here there is no objection to hearsay evidence, the [court] may consider it for
whatever value it may have; such evidence is to be given its natural probative effect as if it were
in law admissible.” Moreover, in a bench trial, “it is to be presumed, absent a showing to the
contrary, that the District Judge considered only material and competent evidence in arriving at
[her] findings …” Dedmore v. United States, 322 F.2d 938, 946 (9th Cir. 1963); see also,
E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[In] a bench trial, the risk that
a verdict will be affected unfairly and substantially by the admission of irrelevant evidence is far
less than in a jury trial.”).
14

the Court finds persuasive the testimony of Rogers and Wallace that they believed the type of
guns she purchased where not suitable for her use given her hand injury and age. In the end, the
Court simply does not find credible Ms. Taylor’s testimony that she purchased the guns for
herself.
What the Court does find is that Ms. Taylor deeply loves her gravely ill son and she
wanted to do something that would bring him happiness in the presumably limited time he has
remaining. Therefore, she bought these guns on his behalf because he could not purchase them
himself. While Ms. Taylor’s actions were motivated by love, they violate Section 922(a)(6) and
924(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the guns are subject to civil forfeiture under Section 983(c)(1).
VII.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS in favor of the Government,
DECLARES that the firearms are property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and
924(a)(1)(A), and thus are subject to forfeiture in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1).
Dated this 5th day of August, 2015.

A
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

15