makes it a crime possessed transfer cell in any way laser aiming devices but what happened is the government relied upon language in private letters that were written you a corporation insights in which the f d a indicated that in exchange for variances from this standards that they had imposed that the laser gaming sites could only be sold to military and law enforcement personnel now the government has said those letters are available they're very difficult to find they were very difficult to find out your client wasn't charged with violating or conspiring in reference to the indictment and it also is quite clear from the government's bill of particulars that in fact it was relying on the variance as it appears in the letters so under those circumstances even though the letter indictment it's very clear that in fact the government was relying on the letters because absent the letters your honor the only other thing that includes similar language is the private eye our disclosure document notice point or are you making a point that his conduct not constitute a federal criminal offense yes i making the point that under three seventy one when we look at what the logical government function is that the government in this case and their charging document went too far because we have no law we have no regulation that meets the criteria that was set out in the indictment the concept of and his alleged conspirators had somehow undermined that at a function but again if we look to function in what does it mean to be a government function certainly relying on personal use and then they would give it up among different people but the question becomes is that is that a valid government function under three seventy one when in fact the government is relying on it significance between insight but i didn't mean we had the customs letter of the letter was issued and the private company who received that letter may have contractual obligations to the customs department based on that letter but that rather does not have the force of law and therefore could not have been used under three seventy one as a lot of function by then the customs agency in order to  a three seventy one allocation am i at this question i mean i thought that the f d a had passed regulations making it unlawful for manufacturers to sell lasers of this type anyway and then  very under three sixty k k however i think it is a stretch to say that they were banned they were allowed to be produce and they were being produced these these items can be found all over the internet does not have the power to legislate and there is nowhere in any regulation or really any law that says that the the f d a has the right to prohibit a certain and then it goes on to say limit the sale of various restricted laser sight devices to the military and law enforcement it is very clear that the charge was a three seventy one with the allegation being  not really the allegation but there must be and that instead in fact this was directed at the f d a and the indictment does not provide even in the factual allegations in the indictment why did they use the going anywhere else but the question to her runs whether or not that's directed at the f d a in t n are we actually had a banking relationship with a loan coming from the federal government in the activities we also had a rule twenty nine and the same issue so i would urge the court to consider the language that abounds in our brief that it's a civil and a criminal or criminal statute that makes  a purely private transaction criminal hasta have some basis something greater than agency policy otherwise we open up our citizen that were restricted to learn foresman in military personality and that is intertwined with the entirety of the chart and that cannot be a legitimate basis for the charge because that can only be fraudulent statements or false statements that appeared in the records of what would be interpreted as under nine twenty four c that had to be kept by an agency making imposes the very recordkeeping requirement that is not part of the government's allegation here so it may be that the national firearms act also regulates machine guns but i don't i don't see how in the world you take it out of the gun control not regulate machine guns in any way shape or form and i don't know how you can do that focus on title e those have not changed rate transportation registration importation provisions which are under five zero one the charge that's being charged is is a false statement kept in the course of the record in this case the government did not argue in its closing as a government as as the government is airing these brief now that the transaction was actually the transaction at issue not what the email so could you address the problem property your troops holmer and reveal sources sure you're on i don't think we have a problem property interest because the property is the actual machine guns you're right i think that this i guess i'm not sure what your honest concerns are so ok let's case i'd like you to address olmert brutalises in terms of property interest your honor yes either tell me they're wrong or tell me they what happens with the property after its soul has not that it's any less illegal for different kinds of there are other ways to prosecute than it's a problem prosecuting it was a wire fraud and then using it as  seven charge proceeds are above ten thousand dollars i don't think that's in dispute as it relates to the one nine hundred fifty six charge that relates to the second gun sale and that's the government's argument that they can seal at least as i understood them to maybe i'm wrong but but that wire fraud doesn't actually fit that because there's no property interest there may be other legal and regulatory interest but no property interest in the later disposition of those question your honor i think we're dealing with two different issues right there's the money there's the wire fraud and the victim in this case was forced to enter into an illegal transaction and dispose of these firearms illegally because that the defendant interests after you give them to me is relevant at all under the money which would your response to the mcnally point be that the manufacturer has a property interest in the guns before the sale and that if i may have to pick up on the money laundering for a moment because i think it and the jury was probably confused by this piece well but the way that that money laundering this charge the underlying offense wired pride and so even though that coupled with the three seventy one provision though the government does not have to prove that in fact that wire fraud was achieved the government does have to prove the intention to complete each element of the stand to the facts and manufacturer how is that even an issue well actually under the case that we cited to the court there was a question about whether the manufacturer does in fact had and have a property interest in about whether the manufacturer has a property  then under any circumstances where an items purchased that would be a property interest even if that the nature of the wire transfer is related to license or and sir i think that's really  the theory would simply be somebody who is not supposed to be able to buy this article whatever it may be lied to the manufacturer through the scheme to use the mails or wires  apartments what happened with an afterword and so i think that's an important distinction i i would just like to very quickly state that i think that the problem that we just discussed for thirty three seventy one  allegation under thirty forty three is what was problematic regarding the jury instructions and three seventy one because the government with the court committing it was around to take out those