At his trial, the District Court allowed the Government to introduce as evidence of "similar acts" under Rule 404(b) evidence of petitioner's involvement in a series of sales of allegedly stolen televisions and appliances from the same suspicious source as the tapes, concluding that such evidence had clear relevance as to petitioner's knowledge that the tapes were stolen. That is, the statements were not made in connection with the purchase or sale of firearms by Mr. Huddleston, but rather in connection with redeeming property which he himself had brought to the pawnshop. It simply outlaws it, and this was — the whole purpose of this was to bring the whole gun transactions into licensed dealers, into transactions between licensed dealers. On rehearing, the court affirmed the conviction. of any firearm" from a licensed dealer and intended or likely to deceive the dealer "with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm. I find it very hard, Your Honor, to take that position. It defines a "pawnbroker" as, "any person whose business or occupation includes the taking or receiving, by way of pledge or pawn, of any firearm or ammunition as security for the payment or repayment of money.". I think that the argument that I would adopt is that the term acquisition by itself is ambiguous. In that case you will be required to fill out Form 4473, yes. Thus, informed of the fact that almost all firearms transactions by pawnbrokers were through pledge and redemption, and faced with the argument that pawnbrokers should not be considered as "dealers," Congress clearly chose to retain pawnbrokers as firearms dealers. Mr. Saferstein, going back to my question, your — the Government’s brief states that the evidence at trial showed that petitioner, your client pawned his wife’s Winchester, and then later pawned at the same store two other rifles belonging to his wife. can send it to you via email. And yet the ultimate effect of all this it’s a simply a return to the status quo at the end of the pawn period, when he takes back the gun into his possession. So that the Congressional action in adding the wording that pawnbrokers defined as people who merely take pledges of guns are under the Act and in the report accompanying it specifically stating that pawnbrokers who deal in firearms, rather than those who sell them are under the Act, would certainly be a strong indication that something in addition to mere sales would have been included. . This is a form used in the enforcement of the gun control provision of Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub.L. Our use of these terms, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" is not admissible to prove a person's character, but may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of knowledge. This warning also was in boldface type. It was — it’s not defined, in fact there are something like — I think 12 to 15 terms used in this law to define the transfer of firearm. The first piece of similar act evidence offered by the Government was the testimony of Paul Toney, a record store owner. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? Petitioner was charged under federal law with the knowing possession and sale of stolen videocassette tapes. I’ll go that far if you feel that is necessary to decide this case, because Your Honor, as — if we want to get into the legislative history, Senator Tydings is one of the persons supporting, speaking for the Bill, stated those purpose to be, to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. 11. Now in each of these cases where we’re talking about acquisition from one side, I believe that we’re talking about disposition from the other side. If I’m forbidden to possess heroin for example, and I’m up on charges before, and so I didn’t possess it, I had it before. He don’t know why as a practical matter she didn’t redeem them? Well, I thought the testimony at the trial, I’m reading it on page 28. App., p. 688. What he meant by all that was that the government was trying to distinguish Laisure by saying that in Laisure, it was the owner who had pawned the gun, whereas in our case it was an agent of the owner.