Originally Posted by jasilva
I would think the part of the PC that I highlighted takes care of transfers.
How is the purchaser/receiver giving or lending?
It seems like a small meaningless add-a-word by DOJ BOF, but when you consider what it means, its not such a small word.
If the word transfer would have been used statute, that would have effectively covered both parties in a magazine exchange transaction, right?
The one giving/selling/lending/etc AND the person receiving/buying/barrowing/etc would both be guilty of a crime if transfer was in the statute. The purchaser could be considered to be on the receiving end of the transfer, right?
But, IMO, since the Statute doesnt include that one little word, it is geared specifically AND exclusively toward the giver AND does not cover the purchaser in any way, shape or form.
So, the reason I asked if this was an "underground regulation" is because it appears as if BOF added that one little word intentionally for a different interpretation of the statute. And if that interpretation is passed on to someone via official government documentation, is that not an "underground regulation?"
Now, unless im missing something or there is another statute that I am unaware of, can anyone see any fault in my reasoning? (and please save the "conspiracy" angle because that only works if 2 or more people are "conspiring" to commit a crime and it appears the the receiver isnt doing anything wrong).
I would love to get input on this....