cited Cited "see" United States v. Michael Paul Udofot See United States v. Williams, 485 F.2d 1383, 1385 (4th Cir.1973), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 941 , 94 S.Ct. 1947 , 40 L.Ed.2d 293 (1974); H.R.Rep.

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Patrick G. Henry See United States v. Williams, 485 F.2d 1383 (4th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941 , 94 S.Ct. 1947 , 40 L.Ed.2d 293 (1974) and United States v. Burton, 351 F.Supp. 1372 (W.D.Mo.1972), aff’d, 475 F.2d 469 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 835 , 94 S.Ct. 178 , 38 L.Ed.2d 70 (1973), both so holding.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Krug Courts have held that the “purpose is to effect delivery of the firearm in a manner that makes the carrier aware that a firearm is being transported,” United States v. Dunn, 813 F.2d 1124, 1125 (11th Cir.1987), and that to satisfy this exception “a passenger must give the carrier at least actual notice that the item to be transported is a firearm or ammunition,” United States v. Udofot, 711 F.2d 831, 838 (8th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Williams, 485 F.2d 1383,1385 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 941 , 94 S.Ct. 1947 , 40 L.Ed.2d 293 (1974) (holding that to satisfy the passe…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. David Hartzog See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 485 F.2d 1383, 1385 (4th Cir.1973) (“[T]he entire statutory scheme is aimed at restricting the unchecked movement of firearms and ammunition which undermines legitimate efforts to impose reasonable restrictions upon their possession and use.”), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941 , 94 S.Ct. 1947 , 40 L.Ed.2d 293 (1974).