Cite as Wenos v. Secretary of the Treasury, No. 88-5334 (S.D.Ill. March 19, 1990) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Mary Wenos, Petitioner, v. Secretary of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Respondent. Case Number 88-5334 March 19, 1990 William L. Beatty, Judge. FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on petition for de novo review of the denial by the Secretary of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("The Secretary)", of a license as a pawnbroker dealing in firearms other than destructive devices. This petition was filed pursuant to section 923(f) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. sections 921 et seq. ("The Gun Control Act"). The Court, having reviewed the transcript of the administrative hearing and the exhibits introduced at the hearing, and having heard the testimony presented and the arguments of counsel and otherwise being fully advised in the matter, finds as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.) Petitioner was an officer and shareholder of a corporation named Herman's Pawners Corporation from its incorporation in 1979 until January 1, 1990. 2.) All the shares of the stock in Herman's Pawners Corporation have at all times been owned by petitioner and/or her husband Herman Wenos. Until January 1, 1990, petitioner owned 49% of the stock of Herman's Pawners Corporation. Herman Wenos has owned the remaining share of stock of Herman's Pawners Corporation since its incorporation. 3.) Until January 1, 1990, petitioner was vice-president and secretary of Herman's Pawners Corporation. 4.) Petitioner and her husband have been married and have lived together over 26 years. 5.) On July 7, 1981, Herman's Pawners Corporation was issued a federal license as a pawnbroker dealing in firearms other than destructive devices. 6.) The federal firearms license of Herman's Pawners Corporation was revoked effective July 30, 1987, for willful violations of the Gun Control Act. The revocation was sustained by this Court in Civil Action No. 87-5291 by Order dated December 10, 1987. 7.) On January 25, 1988, petitioner filed with the Secretary, pursuant to section 923(a) of the Gun Control Act, an application for a license as a pawnbroker dealing in firearms other than destructive devices. 8.) Petitioner proposed to conduct hr firearms business as a sole proprietorship under the name Sunshine Security. 9.) Petitioner proposed to operate Sunshine Security in the same building where Herman's Pawners Corporation had conducted its firearms business, and where Herman's Pawners Corporation continues to conduct the remainder of its pawn business. 10.) Petitioner was to lease a portion of the premises from herman's Pawners Corporation for the operation of Sunshine Security, and Sunshine Security would share heat, air conditioning, utilities and premises liability insurance with Herman's Pawners Corporation. 11.) Sunshine Security was to share a vault, office space, and display area with Herman's Pawners Corporation. 12.) The employees of Herman's Pawners Corporation, including children of Herman and Mary Wenos who worked for the pawn shop when that business held its firearms license, were to assist the employees of Sunshine Security as the need arose. 13.) On April 15, 1988, the Secretary issued to petitioner, in accordance with section 923(f) of the Gun Control Act, a Notice of Denial of Application for License. 14.) On April 21, 1988, petitioner through her attorney, requested an evidentiary administrative hearing to review the denial of her application for license. This request was made in accordance with section 923(f) of the Gun Control Act. 15.) The hearing requested by petitioner was held on May 19, 1988. Petitioner was present with counsel. 16.) On October 5, 1988, the Secretary issued to petitioner, in accordance with section 923(f) of the Gun Control Act, a Final Notice of Denial of Application. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1.) In view of the revocation of the federal firearms license of Herman's Pawners Corporation for willful violations of the Gun Control Act, it is undisputed that under section 923(d)(1)(C) of that Act, Herman's Pawners Corporation would not be entitled to another federal firearms license. 2.) The Court finds no evidence that petitioner personally committed any willful violation of the Gun Control Act. 3.) However, the Court finds that the interlocking relationship between Sunshine Security and Herman's Pawners Corporation, as reflected in paragraphs 1-5 and 8-12 of the Findings of Fact, demonstrates a significant unity of interest between Sunshine Security and Herman's Pawners Corporation. 4.) The Court therefore finds that petitioner's application for a federal firearms license was a subterfuge which, if permitted to succeed, would circumvent the Secretary's revocation of the license previously held by Herman's Pawners Corporation and frustrate the objective and public policy purposes of the Gun Control Act. 5.) Moreover, if the Secretary granted a license to petitioner after rightfully revoking the license of Herman's Pawners Corporation, the Secretary would have no credibility with firearms dealers whose activities he regulates. 6.) This case is controlled by Casanova Guns v. Connally, 454 F.2d 1320 (7th Cir. 1972), in which the Court of Appeals sustained the denial of an application for a federal firearms license in circumstances substantially similar to those here. The reasoning of Casanova Guns is applicable here and the Court finds that this case falls squarely under Casanova Guns. 7.) Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Secretary properly denied petitioner's application for a federal firearms license. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition to Set Aside the Secretary's denial of Petitioner's Application for License is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 19th day of March 1990. [signed] William L. Beatty United State District Judge