case involves a statutory scheme with very plain language carefully crafted by congress it's a case in which the statutory language has then explained in a very clear circuit court decision of this circuit a decision that relied on case law from other circuits and which has never been contradicted in any other case of the circuit and it's a case also in which the facts are very clear there's inferences that are being made in fact there's differences powerpoint inferences that i think that the government has been making but in terms of the basic facts they are as follows the companies the farmers manufacturer be rather lengthy so that the rifle barrel meets a federal requirement of being sixteen inches to avoid various restrictions and a rifle that fires safely without undue pressure the company took this so it's a complete device there's a second definition which is a combination of parts designed to redesign and intended to a symbol or fabricate a farm sounds or in the third definition that's relevant here proposed to sell this rifle as an ordinary wife all and that person consumer would have different options they could buy the gun and use it exactly as it was designed and marketed as a normal rifle also the most will break device as threads where you could attach other devices to it you could attach what's called a compensator or a fly suppressor or you could attach what would be defined as a silencer in the firearms agency's opinion they have a sentence where they say comparing this muzzle break to other brighter stand your honor it doesn't operate any better in terms of lowering the decibels of the testing shows that you know are there any features of this muzzle brake that are included to serve the end of creating would by definition it also serves as a muzzle break right and if a consumer were to buy it even if it would make a better or more duction noise if in case but if the consumer never does that never goes the legal process never terrible silencer here's another i've added some features to make it a great silencer and i mark it here's a muzzle break you have to put a cap on it works fantastically as a silencer haas a little more or you could buy my other muzzle brake that does not work well as the silencer cost a little less your position would be since both can operate as muzzle brakes neither is a silencer that seems strange to it when they are positioned as long as the intent is not there  make it into a solid but the point is why did you add the features that make it work well as a silencer other than to have an intent were to work as a silencer because you could have designed a muzzle break without those added features every muscle break is somewhat different  some would be more adaptable to use for it with a silencer and others would not in the question is if a manufacturer chooses to make it more adaptable why can't the agencies say well the additional features that make it more down to will were intended only to make it silencer illegally and so forth but can do so because of the design of this item in addition it's longer silencers aside from lane what are the design features that make it work better as a silencer we don't need to be there for any other reason sure prototype we've come up with i think it's reasonable to look at what they submitted to mean this is a voluntary process they they wanted a t f to look at their firearm and tell them whether it met the different definition of the national firearms act so i think it's a burden on them to submit the  give that some weight there are a firearm manufacturer they could manufacture the prototype they want to e because on that same point if they're right and this is got no features different from any muscle break other than the length then the fact that when they first put it together defendant said no i meant it to be a muzzle brake i didn't intend it to be a silencer the court said now we can look at the record and see if evidence actually undermines your stated intent of course every manufacturer would have an incentive here to say no we're not this isn't a silencer this is  muzzle brake because they would avoid the two hundred dollars tax they would have with a registration you know i think for all practical purposes if it's a national firearms act weapon they won't make it because of because of those extra additional costs there are three different you know they added the combination of parts that of the parts argument nine hundred eighty six under plaintiff's interpretation the stand alone part really loses all meaning i think i think a t f appropriate looks here to what they're what their intent was based on the design evidence based on evidence on the record that contradicted their stated intent which is judge lynch noted i think all manufacturers could come in and say this is not a silencer this is a muzzle brake and thereby avoid the national firearms act requirements holbrooke i think your honor number one there's nothing in the record about any sailor marketing of any silencer to law enforcement or the military that came up in the pellets brief that was never in the record below all we have in the record is that were there were design of the product and in that case the court said it would not be affected most of break it didn't have any of the slots that a muzzle break would have and it reduced noise and in this case we have all the slots that are cut it is in effect in spaced in a way in this muzzle break that you would space them that way only for the purposes of making it a more effective silencer when in know your are that we just that if you look at it sure is this is just longer than the muzzle works as a lot of pictures and you and examine this is longer but the basic designs are the same it's slips out the side so that the force of the gases but what are we supposed to do with the fact that there's a statement in there in the agenc ruling that is contrary to what you're saying there are pictures which are not how we're supposed to evaluate what normal muzzle breaks let's are like relative to slit in  that it would be looked at in terms of what's undisputed in the record and i don't think there's any room for difference we're talking about a criminal statute it's going to have the same interpretation is in this civil case is that agency faculties are just irrelevant and that would have to be the conclusion we've reached right if you just take the case the agency says we can show you every muzzle brake has slits there are i don't know a centimeter this one has a five times as big the only reason you would do that is because it makes it a silencer you come back and say that's not true muzzle breaks often are designed the same way there's a dispute but there's a clear fact finding by the agency which has expertise ordinarily we give the agency some deference on that fact finding you saying we should give them we should give them none and if it still has a use as a product it's not as a silencer because of the word only in the statute that there should not be a difference in that case thank you miss right i'm going to give you two minutes to make respond where of any with respect to this kind of classification decision but i don't know why it would be any different from any other agency action that lies to with respect to the question of is there any evidence in the