[JohnKSa]

That should make prosecution less likely on otherwise identical facts.

Not providing the other evidence means that the repetitive sales requirement becomes a non-issue.

Just as not driving above the speed limit makes "driving" a non-issue in terms of being prosecuted for speeding.

I have not asserted that the simple act of selling more than once, i.e. repetitively, makes one a dealer.

You have repeatedly asserted that Garland says you are "less likely to be prosecuted for selling twice in five years that if than if you do so "several times over a short period". The fact is that Garland does not so much as imply that one could be prosecuted for repetitive sales in the absence of other evidence. Nor is his statement oriented towards assessing the overall likelihood of prosecution, it is explicitly focused on assessing the likelihood of satisfying the repetitive sales criteria. Here it is again. "...less likely to be understood as “repetitively” selling firearms."

How about something very simple. Can you admit the truth of the following:

...less likely to be understood as “repetitively” selling firearms.
Is NOT equivalent to:
...less likely to be understood as being a firearms dealer.

If you can, then it should be patently obvious that what he's saying is quite different from what you are saying.

He explicitly says what his comparison should be taken to mean and yet you are literally putting words in his mouth and then arguing that your strawman should be taken more seriously than the actual wording Garland uses.

You have asserted that Garland: "does not rule out a life altering prosecution over <selling 2x in 5 years>." The fact is that he doesn't imply anywhere that one could be prosecuted for selling 2x in 5 years in the absence of other evidence.

The way you are wording your assertions and taking the quotes you are basing them out of context paints a very different picture than reality.

If one doesn't satisfy the other criteria, then there is no danger of being prosecuted for selling 2 firearms in 5 years--a truth which contrasts dramatically with your alarmist assertion about "life altering prosecutions".

Yet Garland didn’t think that would be a useful part of his explanation.

Of COURSE he didn't. That is because his explanation is clearly addressing ONLY the repetitive sales aspect of the law in that small section of the commentary. That's the question he's answering and that's obviously the exclusive focus of his answer given how it's worded. The sentence you took out of context states explicitly what he's comparing and explicitly states how it should be interpreted. You took it out of context and tried to make it seem like his comment about selling 2x in 5 years indicated that doing so would put people in danger of "life altering prosecution", albeit less danger than selling "several in a shorter period". That is misleading and alarmist.

You are again having a hard time with regs and the accompanying explanation.

No, I'm not having any trouble with it at all.

Garland's comment about 2 sales in 5 years is quite clear, it is offered in a very specific context and provides explicit qualification of its meaning. It is not at all alarming. It's only when one tries to take it out of context and alter the meaning that it seems scary.

That you don’t find the absence of a safe harbor in Garland’s explanation “at all alarming” doesn’t render your position common sense.

The safe harbor is: 'Not doing anything to provide the other evidence required for a prosecution'! There is no need for a safe harbor if repetitive sales are the only criteria satisfied any more than one needs a safe harbor for "driving" if one is not "driving above the speed limit".