Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zukiphile
...Jason_Iowa is substantially correct in the distinction he draws...
|
Actually, he is not. His comment:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason_Iowa
Saying that selling guns at a profit makes you a dealer is not the case. If you are doing it as a livelihood that's a different thing.
|
is far too imprecise to be helpful.
Indeed, the Third Circuit in
Tyson (at 200), makes no distinction between "profit" and "livelihood":
Quote:
|
...By the statute's terms, then, a defendant engages in the business of dealing in firearms when his principal motivation is economic (i.e., “obtaining livelihood” and “profit”)...
|
Essentially one factor is whether the actor's principal motivation is economic, whether called "profit" or "livelihood" is of no consequence. So Jason_Iowa's contrived distinction between "profit" and "livelihood" really doesn't help us understand the underlying legal issues.
The courts which have looked at the question have identified multiple factors which would need to be considered by the trier of fact to decide whether or not a defendant was "engaged in the business."