MC Sports
Warning letterThis gun dealer was cited for 3 violations. The inspection resulted in a warning letter.
A warning letter is the least severe action the ATF can take against a licensee with compliance issues. The letter advises the licensee to comply with regulations.
ATF data indicates that this license is no longer active.
Address
8873 East 34 Road
Cadillac, MI 49512
Wexford County
License
| Number | 4-38-165-01-6J-00781 |
| Type | Dealer in firearms |
| Expiry | License inactive |
Inspection Timeline
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 122 hours conducting this inspection. 132 days passed between the assignment and the final review. The licensee received a final outcome of warning letter.
Hover over underlined text to see definitions of common terms.
See attached emails and attachments dated 10-23-2015 and 10-28-2015 from IOIS redacted and A/S redacted
Report of Violations, Warning Letter, and Recall Inspection . The licensee was cited with three violations of the Gun Control Act . Per a Divisional Addendum (dated October 22, 2014) to ATF Order 5370. IB, the licensee would fall under a recommendation of Warning Conference because the licensee transferred a firearm to a person prior to the 3 day waiting period. The NICS check came back denied but the purchaser is not actually prohibited. The IOI does not believe recommendation of a warning conference is warranted for the following reasons: (1 )The licensee's other two violations would result in a ROV only. (2) The firearm that was transferred was recovered and the licensee was cooperative during the process, including reporting it to the local ATF office as soon as it was discovered. (3) The violation for transferring to a prohibited person was due to a misunderstanding when the purchaser returned the next day with a valid purchase permit from the state. (4) The licensee has already implemented an action plan to stop this type of transfer from happening again. (5) None of the violations cited were repeat violations. Therefore, based on the preceding reasons, the IOI is recommending a warning letter and recall inspection.
Report of Violations, Warning Letter, and Recall Inspection . The licensee was cited with three violations of the Gun Control Act . Per a Divisional Addendum (dated October 22, 2014) to ATF Order 5370.1 B, the licensee would fall under a recommendation of Warning Conference because the licensee transferred a firearm to a person prior to the 3 day waiting period. The NICS check came back denied but the purchaser is not actually prohibited. The IOI does not believe recommendation of a warning conference is warranted for the following reasons: (1 )The licensee’s other two violations would result in a ROV only. (2) The firearm that was transferred was recovered and the licensee was cooperative during the process, including reporting it to the local ATF office as soon as it was discovered. (3) The violation for transferring to a prohibited person was due to a misunderstanding when the purchaser returned the next day with a valid purchase permit from the state. (4) The licensee has already implemented an action plan to stop this type of transfer from happening again. (5) None of the violations cited were repeat violations. Therefore, based on the preceding reasons, I concur with the recommendation of warning letter and recall inspection.
The third violation for failure to wait three business days on a pending NICS delay before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee triggers a warning conference under division policy. However, I concur with the IOI and Acting Area Supervisor's recommendations for a warning letter because this was a redacted-instance, first-time violation, the licensee required a NICS alternate state-CPL in lieu of a completed NICS check in the mistaken belief this was acceptable, the licensee self-reported the error to ATF upon discovering it, and though eventually denied by NICS the buyer was not actually prohibited and willingly surrendered the firearm when confronted by ATF-CE. Neither of the other two violations require more than a ROV . In addition, the licensee has a good compliance record, no previous violations, no trafficking indicators, no missing firearms, a very successful and limited trace history, and strong internal controls, sufficiently reinforce the importance of the NICS delay rule without need of a recall inspection . believe a warning letter will
Violations
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 3 violations.
| Citation | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| 478.125(e) | Failure by a dealer to properly maintain a record of the receipt and disposition of firearms. 🔗 | |
| 478.124(c)(1) | Failure to obtain a Form 4473 showing the transferee's name, sex, address, date and place of birth, and other required information. 🔗 | |
| 478.102(a)(2)(ii) | Transferring a firearm before three business days have elapsed from the date that the licensee contacted NICS. 🔗 |
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »