Michael,

Do you think there would be any benefit in explaining to Mr. Whalen, that intent may be demonstrated through circumstancial evidence? or that the required intent is not necessarily the repair persons intent, but the intent of the customer if the repairer (word?) knew or should have known the intent?

As bad an analogy as the guns are, if a gunsmith repaired (or altered) a gun which he knew or should have known was going to be used unlawfully, he would be liable both civil and criminal.

Also a failure to take precautions against potential unlawful behavior, especially where unlawful behavior has occurred before, opens an individual up to civil sanctions, even if they are only the "gunsmith".

Or would that be a wasted effort?

I find it interesting that this same discussion is still meandering along.