[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You claimed that there is something in the law that puts a person in jeopardy for selling a gun to a friend. That's not a complaint that the law is vague, that's a specific claim.

The claim is that a law so vague that one can't be sure when he isn't at risk of prosecution leaves him in jeopardy.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Please quote the portion of the law that indicates that a single sale of a privately owned firearm to a friend makes a person subject to arrest. The law includes the terms 'repetitive' and 'repetitively' which makes it very difficult to interpret it as referring to a single sale.

If that weren't enough, it also specifically states that a single sale, in the absence of other evidence would not qualify as dealing in firearms.

Emphasis added. Properly understood that means that not even a single sale is required to be found to be an unlicensed dealer; it's the other evidence that may make you a defendant.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

To be fair, that's an example taken from an explanation that the term 'repetitively' should be taken to have its ordinary meaning as opposed to a specifically provided legal definition. He could have just as easily said: "The longer the interval and the fewer the sales, the less likely the behavior is to be interpreted as repetitive." The meaning would be the same.

Furthermore, the repetitive nature of the sales is neither the primary nor the sole criterion for determining if a person is dealing in firearms, so it's inaccurate to make it seem like taking "predominately for livelihood" from the law makes 'repetitive/repetitively' the only remaining criterion.

Of course, no one has done that. I noted that the BSCA removes that element, a limit on its scope, from the definition. Garland's "clarification" is littered with terms that lack specific meaning unless compared to a real standard for frequency, number or duration, but the ones in the paragraph I quoted were occasional, repetitive and short. On the last one, you have to see the humor in his unwillingness to describe how short a period is too short to trigger his attention when he is writing that you are less likely to have your life ruined if you sell twice in five years. I think the people who wrote that had at least a sensible chuckle to themselves over it.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Look, I'm not in favor of the new law, but I don't think that you're doing anyone any favors by taking casual examples from definitions/explanations in the comment section and making them seem like they are not only part of the law but are providing the sole criterion for prosecution under the new law.

I haven't done that. The USAG's explanation of the regs isn't a casual example, but his public explanation of the regs he produced in response to an EO directing him to develop a plan to increase background checks. Since he heads up the giant organization tasked with prosecution of the law, his opinion is consequential.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I think it would be a lot more helpful to talk about what the law does say and how it says it. If you are honest about it, you will have to admit that 2 sales in 5 years is not going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence.

Emphasis added. In other words, two sales in five years can lead to prosecution depending on the sense of the executive branch as to some terms that Garland declines to invest with specificity or the safe harbor of objective criteria. He has metaphorically announced that he understands speeding to be when one drives too fast. That's not a road a lot of people want to take.

I understand that you aren't in favor of the law. Neither of us knows how the expansion of executive authority will manifest in enforcement.