Burgess, JamesWarning conference Revocation warranted
This gun manufacturer was cited for 7 violations. The inspection resulted in a warning conference.
A warning conference is held when a licensee has significant or repeat violations. During the conference, an area supervisor offers the licensee specific guidance on how to achieve compliance.
The licensee was found eligible for revocation. The majority of licensees whose violations merit revocation under ATF guidelines ultimately receive a lesser penalty from an ATF director of industry operations.
|Type||Manufacturer of firearms|
|Expiry||Jan 1, 2022|
Compliance inspections are conducted by one or more ATF officers. After the lead investigator submits a recommendation, one or more ATF supervisors will review the inspection and either concur with or adjust the recommendation.
This page contains information about a single inspection conducted between 2015 and 2017. The ATF may have inspected this licensee before and/or after the inspection detailed here.
Officers spent a total of 92.5 hours conducting this inspection. 66 days passed between the assignment and the final review. The licensee received a final outcome of warning conference.
Hover over underlined text to see definitions of common terms.
Conduct full manufacturer of firearms inspection. Refer to IO Manual Chapter C - Firearms Inspections and FY 15 Domain Assessment. Ensure licensee has filed all AFMERs , if any are missing obtain them during inspection. Conduct 100% inventory and ATF Form 4473 review unless authorized in advanced by Area Supervisor and DIO .
James Burgess falsified required documentation in redacted instances; the A&D record for redacted. In each instance James Burgess certified the documentation as the manufacturer of firearm redacted when in fact it was manufactured by a non-licensee at other than the business premises of James Burgess.
Agree with IOIs recommendation of Violations and Revocation of License. Licensee falisfied required documentation redacted instances. The A&D record for redacted. In each instance licensee certified the documentation as the manufacturer of firearm redacted when in fact it was manufactured by a non-licensee at other than the business premises of the licensee.
The DIO believes an alternate DIO Held WC ILO of Revocation is appropriate in this case. Based on the facts presented it would be difficult to show that the FFL willfully falsified records with regard to redacted He indicated that he believed it was an acceptable practice to have someone manufacture on his behalf under his license. This appears to be an isolated instance redacted and the firearm has been seized by CE. This FFL does not have a bad compliance history, no traces, no unreported multiple sales of handguns, and no missing firearms.
If an inspection uncovers regulatory violations, the licensee receives a report outlining these violations. This section lists the violations found in the inspection, as well as a general description of each offense. More details on the nature of the licensee's specific violations may be found in the report PDF.
This licensee was cited for 7 violations.
|1||478.21(a)||Failure to provide all of the information called for in required forms. 🔗|
|2||478.124(c)(3)(iv)||Failure to record the date NICS was contacted and the NICS response on Form 4473. 🔗|
|3||478.124(c)(5)||Failure of the licensee to sign or date a Form 4473. 🔗|
|4||479.103||Failure to properly file a Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported no later than the close of the next business day after the firearms were manufactured. 🔗|
|5||478.92(a)(1)||Failure by a manufacturer or importer to mark frames or receivers with required information. 🔗|
|7||478.128(c)||False statement or representation by a licensee regarding any information or records required by the Gun Control Act. This carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment. 🔗|
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »