Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED.R. Subsequently, the government filed a Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem on December 26, 2002, alleging that the Property was subject to forfeiture pursuant to 26 U.S.C. ยง 5861(d), which makes it unlawful for any person to possess a machine gun that is not registered to that person in the NFRTR. Therefore, the government concluded that the firearm was in Claimant's possession in violation of 26 U.S.C. ATF also conducted a search of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record ("NFRTR") and determined that the Property was not registered to Claimant or to any other person. The Property was seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("ATF") on January 9, 2002, examined by the Firearms Technology Branch ("FTB") of the ATF, and a report issued concluding that it qualified as a machine gun under the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 26 U.S.C. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The government alleges that it has met the burden of proof regarding its complaint, that Claimant has presented no evidence in response raising a genuine issue as to any material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The government filed a motion for summary judgment on April 18, 2003, regarding its Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem against Defendant property (the "Property"), One Harrington and Richardson M-14 Rifle owned by Claimant Michael F. Attorney (Grand Rapids), Grand Rapids, MI, for United States of America, plaintiff. ONE HARRINGTON AND RICHARDSON RIFLE, MODEL M-14, 7.62 CALIBER SERIAL NUMBER 85279, Defendant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |