Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Ok, that aside, are you saying you would now like to alter your statement to something along the lines of the following:
|
I’ve little interest in changing what I write to address your anxieties about alarm and accommodate your specific needs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zukiphile
I can refer you to the previous posts in this thread in which I’ve assured you that this isn’t what is being asserted at posts 130, 146 and 180 respectively.
|
In that case, you understand that what he's saying is quite different from what you are saying. Which makes it curious that you keep defending the statement.
|
Note that you are here reading what I wrote in those posts as differing from what I wrote. Has it occurred to you that you aren’t especially adept at understanding what I’ve written?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zukiphile
My statement was not that one would be prosecuted even if he didn't satisfy other elements of the test.
|
That's obviously exactly what you did mean.
|
Where I have told you that X is not what I mean, responding that I obviously mean exactly X betrays an unfounded confidence in the breadth of your knowledge. Perhaps the problem is an insufficient awareness of your limits.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Explain some other way to interpret this statement. You can refer back to the post where you originally made the assertion (post #127) to demonstrate how it's possible to read it to understand what you now say you meant it to mean.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zukiphile
According to Garland, 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", but he does not rule out a life altering prosecution over it.
|
|
In a potential prosecution involving an allegation of repetitive sales, Garland does not rule out prosecution where there are as few as two sales in five years alleged. I have previously described the role that plays in a 922a1A prosecution. That prosecution can be brought in the absence of evidence supporting other elements of one being a dealer. Evidence is adduced at trial, well after prosecution has been initiated.
Garland has an opportunity to set a safe harbor of a specific number of items within a specific period of time within which the DOJ would not prosecute, but he declines that opportunity. Instead, the reg allows one to be deemed a dealer and prosecuted even where he has sold no arms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
…much easier to correctly interpret changes the entire tenor and meaning of the statement and now it doesn't have nearly the same ring of alarm as the original formulation.
|
I have little doubt that you’ve run into a challenge in interpretation. This appears to be idiosyncratic.