Cite as STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. BADGER, 1995 OK 113, 912 P.2d 312 STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. BADGER SCBD No. 3895. 1995 OK 113 Decided: October 17, 1995. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Clayton Lee BADGER, Respondent. Rule 6 Bar Disciplinary Proceeding Respondent was convicted of the crime of receiving and possessing a firearm illegally transferred in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 5861 (b) in that no transfer tax had been paid as required by 26 U.S.C. section 5811. Respondent's conviction and the circumstances surrounding it constitute misconduct for which the disciplinary sanction of a six month suspension from the practice of law is imposed effective December 23, 1994. RESPONDENT ORDERED SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 23, 1994. Allen J. Welch, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, for Complainant. Jack B. Sellers, Jack B. Sellers & Associates, Sapulpa, for Respondent. LAVENDER, Justice. Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association, by letter from the General Counsel, notified this Court that respondent, Clayton Lee Badger, a licensed attorney, was convicted by one count information in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma of the crime of knowingly and willfully receiving and possessing firearms, to wit: one HK MP5SD machine gun, caliber 9 mm and one silencer/suppressor, caliber 9 mm, which had previously been transferred to respondent in violation of Chapter 53, Title 26, United States Code, in that no transfer tax had been paid as required by 26 U.S.C. section 5811, in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 5861 (b). Respondent's sentence was three years probation and a $4,000.00 fine. The conviction is final. In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Badger, 901 P.2d 790 (Okla. 1993), we deferred an interim suspension of respondent under Rules 7.1-7.7, 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 1 [5-1]-A, as amended, of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) and referred the matter to a Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) for a hearing to consider whether the conviction demonstrated respondent's unfitness to practice law. In Badger we informed the parties that pendency of the Rule 7 proceeding did not foreclose appropriate disciplinary proceedings being instituted against respondent under Rule 6. Rule 6 proceedings were instituted with the filing of a complaint against respondent under Rule 6 (Formal Proceedings Before Supreme Court and Professional Responsibility Tribunal), Rules 6.1-6.16, 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 1 [5-1]-A, as amended. The parties eventually entered into stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law and the matter was submitted to the PRT. Part of the stipulation, etc. of the parties was an agreement to dismiss the Rule 7 proceeding. The stipulations also agreed to a recommendation that respondent receive a two year and one day suspension, effective December 15, 1991, the day respondent voluntarily closed his law practice and ceased engaging in the practice of law. In addition to the stipulation, which we will detail more fully later, respondent testified at the hearing before the PRT and certain exhibits were introduced. The parties also agreed that a letter signed by respondent, which was attached to his answer, could be considered by the PRT and this Court in deciding the appropriate disposition of this matter. The PRT after considering all the information before it, found conduct warranting discipline, believed a suspension of two years and one day was too severe and recommended to this Court a suspension of one year, effective December 15, 1991. STANDARD OF DETERMINATION IN BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Miskovsky,