Dodson, Fowler, Williams & Nesi

FFL - Inspections, Violations, & What Happens if the Worst Happens

Wed, 06 May 2026 19:30:30 GMT

Understanding Heightened ATF Enforcement, Common Compliance Pitfalls, and the Real Risk of License Revocation for FFLs

I. ATF Regulatory Enforcement and FFL Consequences

Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are operating in a markedly stricter enforcement landscape

than in prior years. Although recent political and administrative changes have reduced regulatory

pressure to a degree, inspection activity and enforcement actions remain significantly higher than

previous levels, especially before 2016. ATF has stepped up both inspection frequency and the

severity of penalties for compliance failures. Actions that once resulted in warnings now more

often lead to formal violation reports and license revocation actions. As a result, even minor

recordkeeping errors – especially those that fall within the ATF’s five core regulatory concerns –

can threaten a dealer’s continued operation.

The ATF may conduct unannounced, full-day inspections and is authorized to review all business

operations, including sales interactions, bound book entries, and Form 4473s. While

investigators typically remain on-site for one day, they may request to remove documents for

further review. When violations are identified, the ATF may issue a warning letter requiring an

FFL takes corrective action, or a letter of revocation of the FFL. A letter of revocation is likely to

issue if the discovered violation is sufficiently egregious, meaning it is a repetitive problem or

one that that is sufficient to trigger an automatic revocation. Either way, the findings become part

of the FFL’s file and the business will face heightened scrutiny from ATF. A repeat violation of

the same issue within the next review period will almost certainly result in license revocation.

II. Licensing Violations & Automatic Revocation

Not every violation identified during an inspection results in a letter of revocation from the

ATF’s Industry Operations Investigators. The agency has several available enforcement

mechanisms, which will be discussed in some detail later. However, certain violations –

particularly when multiple instances are discovered – commonly leads to revocation proceedings.

Importantly, most revocations stem not from criminal conduct, but from routine recordkeeping

deficiencies and negligent sales practices . Investigators place little weight on operational

challenges such as being short-staffed, falling behind on paperwork, or inadvertently transferring

a firearm to a prohibited person even when the NICS check initially returned a “proceed”

response. In the current enforcement environment, strict compliance is the expectation. The

following five regulatory violations account for the significant majority of revocation actions. A

single instance of any of the following types of violations will likely result in at least a warning

letter, while multiple instances significantly increase the likelihood of a revocation letter.

i. Transfers to Prohibited Persons

This is the most serious violation an FFL can commit under Federal Firearms Laws and

Regulations. It is not only breaches the applicable provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations

but may also result in criminal charges. A violation may be cited even when the National Instant

Criminal Background Check System (NICS) initially issued a “proceed” response.

Advancements in criminal-gun tracing have increased ATF scrutiny of dealers whose firearms

are recovered in criminal investigations. Traces that once required months can now be completed

within one to two days. Multiple trace hits within a short timeframe commonly trigger priority

inspections and can lead investigators to infer negligence or willful disregard of regulatory

obligations. If multiple firearms traced to criminal activity originate from your business within a

one-year, you should expect an ATF inspection within thirty (30) to ninety (90) days.

ii. Failure to Keep Proper Acquisition and Disposition Records

All transfers of firearms into and out of your business must be properly notated. These

acquisitions and dispositions include but aren’t limited to transfers to customers, purchases from

wholesalers and firearms acquired from individuals. Errors, such as missing information,

incorrect serial numbers, or incomplete entries, are treated as significant compliance violations

by ATF. Under current ATF policy, repeated A & D errors are often deemed to be “willful,” even

without evidence of intentional misconduct. The standard for license revocation is “willful

disregard,” and multiple regulatory violations that are deemed “willful” in a single inspection

period, can form the basis for issuance of a letter of revocation.

ATF Investigators closely scrutinize recurring paperwork deficiencies, especially those occurring

after a prior warning, as these are considered perceived indicators of willful regulatory

noncompliance. Even if corrective efforts were attempted or prior guidance was misunderstood,

any repeat violation is likely to be viewed as willful disregard of regulatory requirements.

iii. Incomplete or Deficient Form 4473s

Every sale requires complete and proper information on Form 4473. It’s a two-way street, but the

FFL is responsible for both lanes if anything goes wrong or isn’t completed properly. An error

in the buyer’s portion that is not corrected AND noted as a correction with initials, is considered

a recordkeeping error on the part of the FFL Licensee. Same with failing to verify that the

Section A information matches the information on the applicant’s ID. Failure to document

questions about discrepancies can be looked at by an Inspector as violations of multiple licensing

rules and regulations. In other words, you as the licensee are responsible for making sure the

customer and the employee are filling out the form fully, completely, and accurately. Anything

that looks wrong, or doesn’t match, ask questions, and document what you asked and the

information that was provided in response that permitted you to move forward with the sale.

Put more succinctly, dealers are responsible for ensuring that all required fields on Form 4473

are completed accurately and legibly. Use of outdated forms, missing signatures, skipped

questions, or inconsistencies between the form and the buyer’s identification constitute

violations. ATF may treat unresolved inconsistencies as indicators of potential straw purchasing

or willful and deliberate disregard to the rules and regulations, which is the standard for license

revocation.

iv. Not Conducting Necessary Background Checks

Background checks have to be performed every single time an FFL transfers a firearm to a

non-licensee. Do not pass go. This is one of the most commonly cited areas where inspectors

find FFL’s being non-compliant. Violations commonly arise from returning repaired firearms to

individuals other than the original owner, transferring firearms to employees without proper

checks, completing transfers prematurely after a NICS delay, or accepting expired CPL or carry

permits as exemptions. These scenarios are often misunderstood by dealers but are enforced

strictly.

v. Problems Accounting for Inventory

Each and every firearm has to be accounted for and logged. THE first thing the ATF Investigator

will do is compare physical inventory to the FFL bound book. The ATF considers ten or more

firearms discrepancies between inventory and bound book accounting to be “significant

violations” and in some cases, a sufficient enough deficiency to open a criminal investigation.

Missing firearms, unrecorded acquisitions, or mismatched serial numbers also constitute

significant violations. Homebased FFLs face heightened risk when personal firearms are not

clearly segregated from business inventory. Personal firearms and business firearms CANNOT

be mixed and must be physically separated.

III. What Happens After Inspection if Violations Are Noted?

i. The Review Period – Waiting is the Hardest Part

Following an inspection, ATF typically conducts an internal review lasting several weeks. The

average time is between thirty and ninety days. Outcomes range from no action to warning

letters, formal Reports of Violations, or initiation of revocation proceedings. The ATF Agent is

unlikely to tell you at the completion of the inspection what action, if any, the ATF is likely to

take. They may tell you they found you are in compliance, or they may tell you they found a

violation, but say nothing else. Such a result creates complex business decisions for FFLs.

Recent enforcement trends show a marked increase in adverse actions, particularly as it relates to

issuance of formal reports and the issuance of letters of revocation. In Fiscal Year 2024, the last

year for which ATF presently reports data, 9,696 FFL firearm compliance inspections took place.

5,207 resulted in no violations. 1,689 resulted in a report of a violation, without adverse action.

721 received a warning letter. 214 were required to attend a warning conference. 1,488

surrendered their license or voluntarily closed down. 195 resulted in letters of revocation and

formal revocation proceedings. If you want to take a closer look at the data, a link to the ATF’s

webpage is here. Firearms Compliance Inspection Results | ATF

ii. ATF Issues a Report of Violations

Once the review period ends, if the Investigator and ATF determine there are violations, they will

issue a written report. The “Report of Violations” outlines each alleged infraction and the

corresponding regulatory citation to provide proper notice and clarity to the FFL so that a proper

and full response can be submitted. FFL licensees are generally afforded a brief period, generally

two weeks, to respond or request a hearing. Failure to respond promptly can result in forfeiture

of appeal rights, or your rights to challenge the findings. What you say in the response matters.

If you get a report of a violation, you need to contact an attorney who understands what ATF

wants to hear, and how to deal with the problem in the appropriate manner.

iii. Warning Conference

In some cases, where the allegations are about violations that, while serious, are not obviously or

blatantly unlawful, the ATF may conduct a warning conference. Usually this occurs when the

violations do not permit an automatic letter of revocation to be issued. Warning Conferences

occur with the Investigator and senior officials at the ATF Branch office overseeing the territory

in which the FFL licensee’s primary place of business is located.

The Warning Conference is an FFL’s opportunity to avoid a revocation. What you say, and how

you present matters. If you have a Warning Conference, get an attorney who can assist in

presenting and negotiating with the ATF . Good counsel will take a proactive approach, work

with you to put together a corrective action plan, acknowledge the violations in way that doesn’t

make excuses, but doesn’t admit willful disregard, and prepare necessary material to help sway

ATF to allow for licensure to remain in place.

iv. Warning Conference Result: Revocation or Warning Letter

After the Warning Conference concludes, the ATF will do one of two things:

a. Issue a Warning Letter: If the ATF issues a warning letter, you may continue operations

without fear of a pending revocation. However, this is not a free pass for an FFL. A

Warning Letter is a “near miss,” perhaps an intentional one, on the part of the ATF. You

are now on ATF’s radar. Whatever practive plan an FFL presents to ATF to help convince

the Agency to issue a warning and not revoke the FFL, that plan must be implemented.

Working with an attorney to ensure proper implementation, training, and compliance is

highly recommended, and may be the difference between a Warning and a revocation.

b. Issue a Letter of Revocation: If ATF pursues revocation, the dealer may continue

operations during the appeal period, but must request a hearing within the prescribed

timeframe. A hearing request must be filed quickly, almost always within two weeks.

Missing the deadline means you cannot appeal and the revocation becomes final.

Hearings are usually set for a date between sixty and ninety days out, though they can be

set out for as much as one-hundred-twenty days. If you receive a Letter of Revocation,

hire an attorney immediately. Proceeding to a hearing without counsel is unwise for

many reasons, especially with the increased rates of revocations in the current

enforcement environment being one of several.

v. Administrative Hearing Request

If you receive a letter of revocation, all is not lost. An FFL licensee may contest revocation

through a designated appeals process. The first appeal goes to an administrative hearing before

an administrative law judge. These are quasi-judicial proceedings, where the licensee, and

Counsel, if he hires one, present evidence, call witnesses, take testimony, and make arguments.

The Government has the same rights as the representative of ATF. Although ATF prevails in

most cases, appeals supported by documented corrective measures and challenges to the

agency’s willfulness determination has a meaningful chance of success.

Properly presented appeals have a fairly good success rate (around 3 or 4 in 10), given the

circumstances. The facts of the original investigation are relevant to the outcome, but so are the

corrective actions taken in the time between the investigation and the hearing. Having good

counsel to prepare and work with is critical to any chance of a successful outcome at an

administrative hearing, or at any subsequent hearing, should that be necessary.

vi. Federal Court Review

If an FFL loses the administrative appeal, the next step is to seek judicial review in the

appropriate federal district court. Litigation is costly and can be lengthy, though sometimes it’s

the best option. Court challenges are full judicial proceedings. Evidence and testimony will be

presented. Discovery will be ordered and motion practice is inevitable. Hiring counsel at this

stage, if not done already, is imperative. The United States Attorney’s Office handles these cases

on behalf of the ATF and the Government. There are critical legal issues and strategies that will

have to be properly navigated, and cases often turn on specific facts and legal determinations.

Everything the licensee does after the date the ATF investigator leaves the premises matters,

including whether they have received counsel from an attorney, moved proactively to resolve the

allegations and violations, and if they have a clear plan to ensure full and immediate compliance,

up to the point a federal judge will hear the case. The Government is going to have a career

Assistant United States Attorney representing the ATF and their position, one who is experienced

in handling these kinds of cases and who understands what the judges want to see in order to

uphold a revocation. Representation for the FFL by an attorney at this point is imperative.

vii. Voluntary Surrender

Rather than risk the appellate review process, in some cases, licensees will elect to surrender

their license before revocation becomes final. Doing this avoids a formal revocation on record

and permits earlier reapplication than could be possible after a revocation is imposed. Rather

than a three-year bar on reapplication that comes with a formal revocation, a voluntary surrender

before the revocation is effective does not have any fixed ban on reapplication. However,

reapplication success rates are highest for persons who wait one to three years, and who present a

well-developed, and different business structure.

IV. Criminal Exposure

The other issue that arises where violations are found is whether those violations leading to

revocation can lead to criminal liability for an FFL licensee. The answer is yes, but not always.

Criminal prosecution is most likely when violations involve:

Firearms traced to criminal activity and another violation (will be automatically referred)
Transfers to prohibited persons (likely automatically referred)
Significant inventory losses (may be referred, depending on scope)
Evidence of intentional misconduct (will be automatically referred)

Recordkeeping violations alone typically result in administrative penalties rather than criminal

charges, although they may still lead to license revocation. The most egregious violations,

especially where there are multiple instances of the same type of violation within the reporting

period, generally lead to criminal prosecutions. Criminal penalties range in severity, but the

majority of Title 18 violations under section 924 carry five-year prison terms. If your violations

involve multiple firearms, there are possible Title 26 charges that could carry up to ten-year

prison terms.

However, if you can get counsel involved early, and you are able to make sure that you are

proactive in your approach to dealing with the alleged violations, your chances of successfully

navigating both the administrative and criminal investigations increase significantly.

V. Conclusion

The current regulatory climate demands heightened diligence from FFLs. ATF’s expanded

interpretation of willfulness, increased inspection frequency, and aggressive enforcement posture

have elevated the risks associated with even minor compliance failures. Where in the past there

was room for Investigators to let a single violation slide or just issue a verbal warning, the world

has changed in this arena. Nevertheless, most dealers can successfully navigate the process

through early action, structured compliance improvements, and informed legal representation.

Get an attorney early. Be proactive and not reactive. Have a plan and follow it. If you are

wondering when you should ideally have an attorney? The answer is NOW, before you have a

problem. A good firearms attorney will come to the shop WHILE THE ATF INVESTIGATOR

IS THERE , to monitor what is happening, and ensure ATF complies with all legal requirements

and limitations imposed on administrative searches and inspections.

Court of Appeals Delivers Major Ruling for Injured Motorcycle Accident Victims and Their Treatment Providers

Sat, 07 Mar 2026 18:06:23 GMT

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" Removes Tax on National Firearms Act

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:28:32 GMT

On July 4th, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was passed. The bill contains many provisions dealing with a variety of taxes. One in particular that attracted attention for our clients was a provision which removes a tax on National Firearms Act (NFA) items.

The $200 tax stamp for suppressors, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and “any other weapon” has been modified and the “tax stamp” now has a $0.00 cost, meaning there is no longer a cost for the applicable tax stamp required to own or possess such an item.

This provision of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” will be effective as of January 1, 2026, so for the rest of 2025, the tax will still be collected for each stamp. Other items also under the jurisdiction of the NFA, such as machine guns and explosive devices, will not be affected. Even with the tax being reduced, the application and approval requirements were not changed. An ATF Form 4 application will still have to be submitted, and in certain cases, additional forms are required, to obtain the stamp through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. And yes, you still have to file separate applications for each item that qualifies as a restricted item under the NFA. Now, however, starting in January of 2026, at least you won’t have to pay for them.

Items that are generally prohibited under the NFA, unless a tax stamp is obtained, have been at the center of a longstanding second amendment debate. People who are in favor of the tax and the NFA’s restrictions argue that restricting these items makes the public safer because easy to conceal firearms (like short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns) can’t be easily obtained, and silencers (suppressors) that quiet gun reports, mean higher likelihood of identifying and responding to firearm-related crimes quickly. Those in favor of removing the tax stamp and tax requirements argue that such restrictions violate the Second Amendment because the NFA and its tax stamp restrictions make it harder for law-abiding citizens to bear arms by subjecting them to onerous and unnecessary additional restrictions. Others point to the fact that the NFA’s restrictions and tax imposition haven’t reduced crime and have resulted in no appreciable improvement to public safety. Citizens who want the tax to continue being implemented are arguing that it will result in a significant loss of tax revenue and that the removal of the tax will weaken gun control. Whatever side you are on, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” ensures that the required tax stamp will no longer cost you anything to obtain on certain specified items.

SCOTUS Spring Sessions Wraps with Notable Decisions

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:42:55 GMT

The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has issued opinions on the last cases from the October 2024 Term, before departing until October when the next session opens

With the closure of the spring session comes numerous substantial decisions that impact citizens both on the local and national levels. Here is an overview of the most anticipated case rulings.

TRUMP V. CASA

SCOTUS rules to limit judges’ powers on injunctions, birthright citizenship still unclear, though the Court will take up substantive arguments about the Executive Order in the October 2025 Term.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump’s argument that injunctions (a legal block) used by federal judges and implementation of national injunctions are to be limited. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s written opinion stated that injunctions are still legal and can be used on a case-by-case basis, and only with those involved in the case.

What does this mean?

SCOTUS ruled that federal district courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions, sometimes called nationwide injunctions, that allow a Court to stop the Government from applying a specific law or set of laws against anyone. Rather, district Courts are only permitted to issue preliminary injunctions against the parties in a specific case, and only if those parties have standing, or a right to bring suit. The “Birthright Citizenship” clause of the 14th Amendment and questions about the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order limiting its effect will be heard on the merits next term.

MAHMOUD V. TAYLOR

SCOTUS rules that Montgomery County, Maryland’s removal of a classroom “opt-out” during lessons involving LGBTQ+ material for children of parents whose religious beliefs do not agree or comport with such teaching or material was a violation of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion Clause.

What does this mean?

Montgomery County, Maryland’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of lessons in a public school that expressly taught LGBTQ+ themes or values violated the religious rights of parents, and determined that the district’s policy was a violation of the Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment. The Court’s decision would require public school districts across the country to permit parents to opt out of lessons or material that promotes certain LGBTQ+ themes to children, if they have a religious objection to the material or the themes being taught through the material. The Court’s ruling continues to expand the protections of the Freedom of Religion clause into the realm of public education and parental choice and control over what material a child is taught..

KENNEDY V. BRAIDWOOD

The Court determined that a challenge to the mandatory provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring coverage for preventative care, i.e., vaccinations, screenings for blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, etc., could not be sustained, and the preventative care mandates were upheld.

SCOTUS upheld the preventative care mandates contained in the Affordable Care Act, which include initial screenings and treatments such as immunizations, screenings (blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, etc.), and certain preventative medications. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that all health plans are required to offer these initial and preventive care measures.

FREE SPEECH COALITION V. PAXTON

A Texas law requiring age verification for websites publishing sexually explicit content deemed harmful to minors was upheld. The case was centered around Texas House Bill 1181, which necessitates age verification for websites where more than one-third of the content posted consists of material that is deemed harmful to minors. While the Free Speech Coalition argued that this burdened protected speech of adults, it was ultimately deemed reasonable in a 6-3 decision to protect minors from harmful content.

FCC V. CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH

Consumers’ Research, a conservative non-profit organization, challenged the constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund (USF) Program of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). The USF provides affordable internet access to establishments such as libraries, rural healthcare providers, and schools, and is funded by donations from communications carriers. Consumers’ Research argued that the way USF funds are allocated is unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Supreme Court was in favor of the FCC and supported the constitutionality of how it is funded.

Michigan Senate Proposes Bump Stock Ban Contrary to United States Supreme Court Ruling

Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:33:16 GMT

The Michigan Senate has recently introduced a series of “ghost gun serialization” bills containing legislation to ban the possession, sale, transfer, and manufacturing of bump stocks within the State of Michigan

Michigan Senate Bill 224 imposes this statewide law with a felony charge punishable by a five-year sentence and/or a $2,500 fine for violators. Although the wording of the bill does not outright say that the “bump stock is banned”, the restrictions the bill imposes make it impossible to legally own, purchase, or transfer a bump stock.

The bill effectively creates this ban by requiring law-abiding Michigan residents to obtain a U.S. Federal Treasury Tax Stamp before purchasing a bump stock. To purchase certain items contained in the NFA (National Firearms Act), Federal Law requires a purchaser to obtain a tax stamp before purchasing any Class 3 item. Some examples of Class III items are short-barrelled shotguns, silencers or mufflers, fully automatic weapons (machine-guns) and heavy explosive devices. Prior to October of 2024, bump stocks were considered NFA Class III items based upon the administrative determination of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive (BATFE or ATF).

However, a recent United States Supreme Court Opinion ruled that the ATF’s administrative determination to add bump stocks to the NFA’s classification as a Class 3 item is a violation of the Second Amendment. Garland v. Cargill , 602 U.S. 406, 144 S. Ct. 1613, 219 L. Ed. 2d 151 (2024) struck down the unilateral administrative Class 3 classification of the bump stock, meaning they are no longer included in the NFA’s Class 3 Items List. As such, you cannot obtain a Federal US Treasury Stamp for a bump stock. Since Michigan’s new Senate Bill 224 requires a Tax Stamp to legally own a bump stock, Michigan residents are effectively barred from obtaining them, and if they have one and do not have a previously obtained U.S. Treasury Stamp, may have to remove and destroy them, or be at risk of law enforcement action. Michigan’s legislature is seemingly ignoring the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Cargill , and is busily pushing through bills that further infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Michigan residents.

U.S. Court of Appeals Issues Limited Temporary Injunction on ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F

Tue, 23 May 2023 02:13:35 GMT

Today, May 23, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued an unpublished order granting a preliminary injunction in the case of Mock v. Garland, Case No. 23-10319 regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (BATFE) Final Rule 2021R-08F. The rule, signed by the Attorney General on January 13, 2023, made it illegal to possess an AR-15 style or AK-47 style pistol equipped with a “stabilizing brace.” The rule reclassified these firearms from their previous category as a “pistol” and instead classifies them as “short-barreled rifles.”

The change was significant, because firearms classified as pistols may be possessed and purchased by any person who is not specifically excluded from owning a firearm under State or Federal law, so long as it is registered with the appropriate licensing authority. A short-barreled rife is a prohibited article under the National Firearms Act, unless the person who owns it, or desires to purchase it, procures a tax stamp after submitting a Form 4 application. Millions of people who own these types of firearms legally were required to either permanently remove the brace, which makes these types of weapons difficult to use and operate, particularly for disabled veterans and individuals, or they had to sell them to an appropriately licensed dealer or turn them in to law enforcement or destroy them.

While the injunction by the Fifth Circuit was limited in scope to the Plaintiff’s who filed the lawsuit, the ruling signals that the Court is likely to overturn the rule. Under the present rule, the possession of a braced pistol is a felony punishable by significant prison time, if convicted. The rule was not approved by Congress or through an amendment to the National Firearms Act, but was created by BATFE fiat and approval of the Attorney General. The Fifth Circuit will have to determine if an administrative agency, without Congressional approval, can promulgate regulations that criminalize previously lawful behavior, without direction or oversight from Congress. The limited temporary injunction signals the Court may overturn Rule 2021R-08F and again allow for the purchase of braced pistols without the need for NFA Tax Stamp application and exemption.

Michigan Legislature Proposes New Open and Concealed Carry Restrictions

Fri, 05 May 2023 02:27:56 GMT

Blog: Michigan Legislature Proposes New Open and Concealed Carry Restrictions

By: Daniel J. Williams, Esq.

On February 28, 2023, members of the Michigan House of Representatives members Neeley, Brixie, Young, Tsernoglou, Hood, Paiz, Morse, Steckloff, Martus, McKinney, Wilson, Rogers, MacDonell, Dievendorf, Rheingans, Glanville, Price, Pohutsky, Byrnes, Arbit, Brabec, Hope, Morgan, Puri, Scott, Weiss, Stone, Mentzer, Koleszar, Edwards, Grant, Coffia, B. Carter, O’Neal, T. Carter, Hoskins, Breen, Miller, Whitsett, Farhat, McFall and Aiyash, submitted House Bill 4150 to the Committee on Judiciary for review.

House Bill 4150 proposes amendments to M.C.L. §750.234d that would impose more stringent restrictions on where firearms may be open carried, and also proposes to override the right of persons who possess valid concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) to carry in some places that are presently permitted. Specifically, the bill proposes that firearms may not be possessed for any reason, by any person in Michigan at the following locations: “depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate (banks), churches, Court, theatre, sports arena, day care center, hospital, any establishment licensed under the Michigan Liquor Control Code, and a building or part of a building that is owned or leased by the State of Michigan.

The proposal would eliminate section 2, paragraph (3), which currently provides that “(2) This section does not apply to any of the following: … (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Presently, CPL holders in Michigan are less restricted in where and when they can carry than what is proposed by this new legislation. Persons who hold a concealed pistol license in Michigan should pay close attention to this proposed Bill as it travels to committee review. Otherwise, if the bill passes, and you aren’t aware of the new restrictions, you could find yourself with a misdemeanor or even a felony charge, despite the fact that you might be compliant with the law as it stands today. Firearms laws are changing rapidly in Michigan, and there are more proposals coming. Keep checking in here for more updates as we will do our best to keep you informed. And as always, if you find yourself on the wrong side of any of these firearms law, whether old or just recently passed, give us a call.

Case Update: Provider Actions Not Barred Because An Insurer Rescinds Claimant’s Policy

Fri, 05 May 2023 02:23:52 GMT

Case Update: Provider Actions Not Barred Because An Insurer Rescinds Claimant’s Policy

Aimee M. Fowler, Esq.

On April 6, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. and LM General Ins. Co, COA #359681, resulting in a major win for medical providers treating auto accident patients. The Court determined that when a provider files a lawsuit, before the underlying claimant files his or her action, a determination by the automobile insurer to rescind the underlying claimant’s policy, does not automatically preclude recovery by the provider in its separate action.

Following its developing line of cases, the Court determined that the legal doctrine of res judicata, which bars the same civil matter from being filed twice where it has been previously resolved, does not bar a properly filed provider suit based upon an assignment. The Court has held that the assignment of rights by an auto accident claimant causes them to lose privity in interest, meaning they no longer share the same legal interest. As such, the legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel cannot bar or result in a dismissal of a provider’s claim on these grounds, if they have properly filed separate suit based upon an assignment of rights.

Under those circumstances, even if the insurer rescinded the claimant’s policy during the course of litigation and obtained a judgment, the provider’s claim is not defeated on grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel. This does not mean other challenges couldn’t result in defeat of the provider’s claim, but these avenues are no longer available to insurance defendants to attempt to dispose of a claim.

Providers are having to navigate seemingly choppier waters in the No-Fault space each passing day. Our office specializes in working with providers to find refuge from these stormy times in the No-Fault act by providing advanced strategies to improve the speed and values of outcomes, even where the Medicare Fee Schedule may apply all or a portion of a provider’s bills. If you are a provider looking for guidance, please contact our office to see if we can help you.

Michigan’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order” Law – What is It and How Could this “Red Flag Law” Impact Your Second and Fifth Amendment Rights

Tue, 02 May 2023 02:12:17 GMT

Senate Bill 83, which has now passed the Michigan House and is set for vote in the Michigan Senate, is commonly known as the “Extreme Risk Protection Order Act.” Such Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, commonly referred to in the news as “Red Flag Laws,” have become quite the rage in State legislatures. Many legislators view these types of laws a “common-sense gun control” measures to help tamp down acts of gun violence. However, each state’s version of these laws is different. Some are more restrictive, some less so. All of them trigger Second and Fifth Amendment concerns, as they provide a means by which the Government can issue orders to take a person’s property, here their firearms, by means of a Court order, effectuated by local police departments or other law enforcement agencies.

What Does the Law Do?

“Red Flag Laws,” or Extreme Risk Protection Order laws are, at least in theory, designed to do two things, both of which seem common sense on their surface. First, they are supposedly designed to keep person’s who, for a variety of reasons, pose a risk to his or her own safety, or the safety of another person, from purchasing or obtaining a firearm. Second, they are supposedly designed to remove a firearm or firearms from a person who is deemed to be a threat to him or herself or others. While these seem like commendable goals, such orders pose clear and present danger of abuse and, in some circumstances, can infringe on a person’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and their Fifth Amendment rights against unlawful taking of property by the Government.

Michigan’s proposed Extreme Risk Protection Order Act would be one of the most stringent in the country. The law permits a spouse, former spouse (i.e. an ex-husband or ex-wife), significant other, former significant other (ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend), parent, sibling, cousin, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, other more obscure family member, mother or father or a child in common (baby momma or baby daddy to be colloquial), any police officer, or a health care provider (doctor, nurse, psychologist etc.) may file a complaint and summons with the family court for an appropriate county, seeking an order to restrain the target of the complaint from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

A court that receives such a complaint must expedite consideration of such orders. Generally, the Court is supposed to provide a respondent (the person who is supposedly in need of an injunction against buying, owning, or possessing a firearm) notice. Notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental tenets of due process, which is required before a Court or the Government are generally able to infringe on a constitutionally protected right. The proposed statute provides that where notice is provided to the respondent, only “a preponderance of the evidence” is required to enter such an order and permit confiscation of not only a firearm owned by the respondent, but even of firearms not owned by the respondent, but which he or she might have access to. In other words, Michigan’s law permits the taking of property from a person who is not even the target of an extreme risk protection order, simply because the respondent might gain access or possess those firearms.

The law permits the Court to enter such an order even when the respondent has no notice and no opportunity to be heard. The proposed statutes provides that, where a Court has clear and convincing evidence, it may enter such an order, and allow the respondent an opportunity to seek a hearing later. Generally, clear and convincing evidence is the standard required for a Court to enter such an order, after a hearing and an opportunity for both sides to present witnesses. Michigan’s Red Flag Law permits the Court to enter such an order without a full hearing or an opportunity for the respondent to be heard.

What About Your Rights Under the Second and Fifth Amendment

The Second Amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this right is a fundamental right and that it is incorporated to the States, meaning, individual States can’t pass laws that infringe upon this right unless they are necessary to fulfill an important government interest. Necessary means that there is no less restrictive means by which the State could accomplish the same important interest than the means prescribed by the questioned law. The Fifth Amendment provides that the Government cannot take a persons property without due process. Due process, in its simplest terms, means that both sides have to be provided notice of a hearing AND an opportunity to have their side heard before a Court can take action. Michigan’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Law appears problematic under both considerations.

The law not only provides a pathway for takings where a respondent is not permitted notice or a hearing before the order is entered, it permits the Court to issue anticipatory search warrants for confiscation purposes and permits the seizure of firearms that are not even owned by the respondent, but to which he or she might have access (constructive possession). In other words, the law would permit the taking of a person’s property who is not the subject of the Extreme Risk Protection Order, who is lawfully and responsibly owning their firearm, because, for example, their significant other’s ex-spouse files an emergency complaint with allegations that a Court believes. All without the respondent, or the third person whose property is confiscated having an opportunity to be heard. The law also does not require that the Government must return the firearms to the respondent or the third party if the allegations are found to be insufficient.

The bill has not been signed into law, though it has been adopted by both the Michigan House and Senate. However, signals are pointing strongly to the likelihood that this bill will find its way to the Governor’s desk and into law before the end of the year. The bill was sent to the Governor for signature on May 9, 2023 and all signs point to its passage.

If this law goes into effect, and you become the respondent in one of these actions, give our office a call. We stand ready to defend clients against these actions, and to challenge the constitutionality of this law’s application.

Michigan Legislature Proposes 14-Day Waiting Period for All Firearms Purchases

Mon, 01 May 2023 02:10:45 GMT

On March 8, 2023, House Bill 4211 was put forth for review and consideration by Democratic Representatives Hood, Hope, Brabec, Tsernoglou, Rheingans, Paiz, Price, Carter, Grant, Puri, Scott, Morse, MacDonell, Byrnes, Miller, Brixie, Young, Arbit and Aiyash. The bill proposes to amend M.C.L. §750.223, specifically section 5, to add the following language:

“(5) A seller of a firearm shall not deliver the firearm to the purchaser of that firearm until at least 14 days after the date the sale of the firearm is completed. A person that violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.”

The law would make it a misdemeanor for any person, either an FFL dealer or participants in a private sale (i.e. guns shows or person-to-person), cannot deliver the weapon to the purchaser until after the passage of fourteen (14) days after the completion of the sale. Violating the statute constitutes a misdemeanor with up to ninety (90) days in jail.

The provision would be the toughest in the nation, particularly with regard to bolt action rifles and modern sporting rifles. Other states do have waiting periods, but only Hawaii’s would be equal to that in Michigan. As other examples, California, District of Columbia, and the State of Washington have a ten (10) day waiting period. Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island have seven (7) day waiting periods. Illinois and Florida currently have three (3) day waiting periods, though in Florida, the waiting period is waived if the purchaser is approved and licensed to carry a concealed pistol.

The bill is only in the early stages of review but given the stated determination of House and Senate Democrats, as well as the governor, this is a law that should be watched for potential passage. From a legal standpoint, the question such a restriction warrants is whether or not such limitations are constitutionally permitted and if the proposed restriction is necessary to protect an important government interest to the extent that no lesser or more appropriate restriction could have the same effect, but with less restrictions on individual liberties. Keep checking in for more updates on this and other legal issues that could impact your rights.