[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

For the third time, I'm going to say it even though I understand at this point that you will not admit that it is a true statement. Fortunately your admission has nothing to do with its accuracy. "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."

John, you don't appear to have understood the prior response. I didn't assert that your statement is untrue.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You understand that the other evidence is critical, but in your assurance above that he won't be put in jeopardy you dispose of the entire issue presented with "in the absence of other evidence". Since no one has ever transferred an arm in the absence of evidence other than the occurrence of a sale, telling people that they aren’t in jeopardy when Merrick Garland won’t even do that is not circumspect.

That's not an assertion that two sales in five years is " going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence". It's an explanation that the other evidence is critical (your term) so your assurance omits the critical part of any fact pattern.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

See, this is unhelpful. That is not what the statement means at all. What it means is that it takes repetitive sales AND other evidence, it doesn't mean that it takes repetitive sales OR other evidence. If you believe otherwise, outline, using direct quotes from the new rule, a method for prosecuting someone who has never sold a firearm.

That is incorrect. This appears to be very helpful. Under the rule,

However, there is no minimum threshold number of
firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement.

and

(c) Presumptions that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer. In civil and administrative proceedings, a person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when it is shown that the person—
(1) Resells or offers for resale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and resell additional firearms (i.e., to be a source of additional firearms for resale);

Emphasis added. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...earms/download p 458.

Garland seems to understands what his regs mean.

Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that
determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.

Id. p 31.

One can trigger a presumption that he is a dealer without having sold anything. You can tell this because neither the rule nor Garland's explanation require a sale.

You will now understand that

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

That is not what the statement means at all. What it means is that it takes repetitive sales AND other evidence, it doesn't mean that it takes repetitive sales OR other evidence.

...is an incorrect reading according to the USAG who presumably read the rule before signing it.



I don't fault you for recommending that people read not only the rule but Garland's explanation. They should read the EO as well. That should not be all interested people do.