United States v. Herbert Van Buren

Appellant Van Burén was convicted of knowingly engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(1). On appeal he contends that the statute is so vague and ambiguous that it fails to provide reasonable notice of what conduct is forbidden. Van Burén, a gun collector, specifically contends that the statute fails to define the point at which collecting becomes the business of dealing.

The distinction between collecting as a hobby and dealing as a business is not unknown to the law and it is recognized that where transactions of sale, purchase or exchange of firearms are regularly entered into in expectation of profit, the conduct amounts to engaging in business. See United States v. King, 532 F.2d 505, 510 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960 , 97 S.Ct. 384 , 50 L.Ed.2d 327 (1976); United States v. Huffman, 518 F.2d 80, 81 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864 , 96 S.Ct. 123 , 46 L.Ed.2d 92 (1975); United States v. Powell, 513 F.2d 1249, 1250-51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 853 , 96 S.Ct. 99 , 46 L.Ed.2d 77 (1975). In its use of terms such as “business” and “dealing,” well defined in the law, the statute has avoided the…