US v. Samuel Hosford

An opinion dated 12/6/2016, about Samuel Hosford selling guns in MoCo

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/154284.P.pdf

We have always wondered what it would take to be convicted of trafficking firearms, the opinion pretty much lays it out: Do not buy guns to flip them.

After reading the majority of the pdf file, I know where this country went wrong when dealing with weapons. It was in the early part of the 1900's, Really, in the 1920s-30s and the courts since the 1960s has been using the wrong "longstanding" BS cases. And what's really interesting is that this case based on the wording of the court, a person could sell/buy as long as the person isn't doing it as a business.

"The law merely imposes a licensing requirement on those who wish to profit by regularly selling firearms outside of their personal collection; it serves, not as a prohibition, but as a condition or qualification. If that's the case, wouldn't the 7 day wait be illegal? Since that is putting a burden on the Biz and the person buying?

"Individuals are free to sell firearms from their personal collection, to sell firearms only occasionally, and to sell firearms commercially with a license." "If he were a hobbyist, sold firearms only occasionally, or sold firearms from his personal collection, he may argue——assuming he were even indicted—that his "core" Second Amendment conduct was implicated. But that hypothetical scenario is not at issue here."

Its it odd that the courts don't go into the 1800s, as it would be "longstanding" before the illegal gun control laws of the 1900s till today..."Applying the federal prohibition to Hosford affects no “core” constitutional right, so applying only intermediate scrutiny remains appropriate." That's what most courts do, rather than USE the Constitution, they just decide on how "hard" to apply it and in most cases, they ignore it.


Just crazy and nuff said

We went wrong when we abandoned the attempt to control criminal conduct and instead chose to control lawful conduct .
It makes perfect sense criminals are not subject to control. Moreover the rights of the accused coupled with the high cost of incarceration make the exercise cost ineffective, if not futile


There was always a faustian bargain implied in the presumption of innocence..many guilty persons would go unpunished. As long as levels of criminal activity stay within tolerable limits this is sustainable.


The question was always when,not if, the tiping point would be reached .. the hyper regulatory state.. the defacto ban of any contact not preautorised is the predicable result...an effective reversal of the presumption of innocence by forcing citizens to prove they are authorized to engage in once lawful conduct.
Firearms are just the beginning.


The American experiment is failing.. oh well.

Very true and thanks Brooklyn for your post

Wow, that opinion only took about 10 weeks.

Another point, while just reading. What is a hobby? I have been told by my tax preparer that if my business does not make a profit after three years, I can no longer take the losses and it's considered a hobby. So, Where does that fit in? Can a kitchen table dealer, who is fully licensed and legal within the state and federal laws, become a hobbyist if they do not make a profit. They would be prohibited under this law, because hobbyist don't sell for profit. So, then you need a license of you are just a hobbyist. Circular argument.

"Obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain" - with the sale of 8 guns.

"the prohibition against unlicensed firearm dealing is a longstanding condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms and is this facially constitutional." Isn't this only from the Gun Control Act of 1968? Strange how the court cites precedence prior to the gun contract act as being relevant, but fails to recognize at the time of the cases, there were no prohibitions on gun sales.

Really??? "a prospective dealer who wishes to obtain a license need only submit an application, be at least 21 years old, pay a fee, and establish lawful premises for selling firearms." What about insurance, business license, zoning permits, form for employees, etc.? Are these judges in touch with reality?

"Neither the application procedure nor the fee are so prohibitive as to turn this condition or qualification into a functional prohibition."

How can firearms sales not touch the Second Amendment's core protection? Isn't there a case that says prohibiting selling infringes on the core right.

How can requiring a license for anything not be a prohibition, but a condition or qualification. Doctors/lawyers/professionals I see. They say the law "regulates rather than restricts."

It is intermediate scrutiny because it's outside the home. Where does this come from?

Next, it will be Tax Ids for coin collectors because they do this for profit, instead of a hobby - that I see no definition in the case.

The commerce clause argument is interesting. By the very nature of the current gun control laws, sales can only be within state. Transfers between dealers are different.

All kinds of interesting. Looks like if I sold my collection of 20 guns (hypothetically, of course) to Officer Friendly, I would be within the law, as low as I could show a hobby and longstanding ownership.

Not_an_outlaw said:

Wow, that opinion only took about 10 weeks.

Click to expand...

Cases take as long as they take. One of the March En Banc cases took about the same length of time, but the other still has not been decided and is taking even longer than Kolbe.

Not_an_outlaw said:

Another point, while just reading. What is a hobby? I have been told by my tax preparer that if my business does not make a profit after three years, I can no longer take the losses and it's considered a hobby. So, Where does that fit in? Can a kitchen table dealer, who is fully licensed and legal within the state and federal laws, become a hobbyist if they do not make a profit. They would be prohibited under this law, because hobbyist don't sell for profit. So, then you need a license of you are just a hobbyist. Circular argument.

Click to expand...

Tax law is different from firearm law. Under firearm law selling one gun for profit can be considered being in the business.

Not_an_outlaw said:

How can firearms sales not touch the Second Amendment's core protection? Isn't there a case that says prohibiting selling infringes on the core right.

How can requiring a license for anything not be a prohibition, but a condition or qualification. Doctors/lawyers/professionals I see. They say the law "regulates rather than restricts."

It is intermediate scrutiny because it's outside the home. Where does this come from?

Click to expand...

They have not said it does not touch the second amendment. It is not an unreasonable restriction however. SCOTUS addressed this in Heller.

Under the first amendment, the government can require permits/licenses to hold rallies and that does not infringe the first amendment.

I believe intermediate scrutiny outside the home comes from a greater government interest to protect society outside the home compared to inside the home along with the core right being about the individual. Reading the cited cases would provide more insight.

Not_an_outlaw said:

The commerce clause argument is interesting. By the very nature of the current gun control laws, sales can only be within state. Transfers between dealers are different.

Click to expand...

The commerce clause has been interpreted to apply to most commerce because it eventually intersects with interstate commerce. Most long guns can be bought interstate via an out of state FFL.