Dealers on trial - firearms dealers
Exporting assorted weaponry is big business. It’s been recently reported heavy armament exports alone to the Mideast from the U.S. has reached $50 billion since the Gulf War.
Export of small arms is also flourishing, but smaller players particularly can get into trouble by their ignorance of certain provisions of the federal Arms Export Control Act.
Fortunately for some hit with violations, a number of recent court cases have held that a specific intent to break the law must be shown by the government when an exporter is charged with willfully exporting or attempting to export firearms on the government’s munitions list without proper license. Mere inexperience or negligence may not be enough.
Take one recent case where the government’s evidence was found to demonstrate that a Florida weapons exporter was negligent in not investigating the legal prerequisites to exportation. The government could not prove an intentional, knowing violation of his legal duties, nor was he “purposely perpetuation ignorance to avoid criminal liability.”
The facts in this case involved a failure to sign certain sales invoices for shipment of handguns to Panama and subsequent invoices acknowledging receipt of other shipments, and the refusal to sign as required being based on fear of becoming embroiled in the sensitive conflict between the U.S. and Panama.
The exporter had, however, freely and voluntarily met with customs officers concerning shipments and expressed his belief that he thought it was the seller’s responsibility to obtain the proper licensing.
The basic issue was that the export notices printed on handgun receipts — which generally notified purchasers that “certain products” could not be exported without specific approval of either of two federal agencies — were claimed not to have given the exporter, who was unsophisticated about licensing and arms shipping requirements, adequate notice by their wording that it was unlawful to export the purchased handguns without necessary approval.
The court said Congress did not intend to impose criminal penalties on innocent or negligent errors. Further, the notice didn’t convey sufficient knowledge of exactly what was required under the Act to this defendant, and there was not specific intent to export without a license particular property designated as “defense articles” that were restricted. Plus, no sinister inferences were established by any evidence, such as a plan the firearms were in fact meant to ultimately reach Cuba, or any other destination prohibited under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
The moral of the story is exporters must be acutely aware of all statues and regulations and act accordingly. The exporter in this case was fortunate as it can often be a close call on what conduct is actually negligence and what is not. When in doubt, check with authorities before a transaction is executed. It can prevent substantial and potentially costly legal hassles later.