the bullet was put into the in the barrel without that part of it is not death not a firearm because it's not defined because it can expel a projectile it happened one day the day one of these weapons was being machines in a machine shop across town and there was in a generic he said you know i really think there's a readily convertible one with a statute and it just might be a violation so here i went over and bought one from mr ste expel the blank at least although it was not fully adjusted and they sent it back to phoenix in the same district warrant and they went into mr stewart's property and found there quite a bit more than just fifty caliber weapons  they found fifteen guns they found twenty six rifles and pistols and they found quite a variety of things what's unique about the case in one respect is the government never pursued the fifty caliber  upon his release or he did upon is released by the magistrate prior to trial he did retain a private counsel who argued the search warrant issue and the essential search warrant issue was whether or not they did have a hearing under franks versus the where they challenge the search warrant on the premises the statute was vague that what readily converted means is too arguable to issue a search warrant over under eighteen u s code nine twenty one a three hour they contended that the fog and misleading information set forth in the search warrant affidavit in that the tools needed to readily converted weapon and the time taken were live in order to have an operable weapon it takes much more than thirty minutes because the after or after working on the receiver from the machine is point of view the weapon has to be headspace has to be adjusted firearms the second issue on appeal is that firearms these machine guns never traveled interstate commerce they were basically made in the phoenix garage and case decided in at least my reply brief and by the government us versus rambo this simply says you cannot have unlawful possession without unlawful transfer there was no transfer of these weapons they were made in the garage out of life and never left out of you saying they're not imported they were actually actually machine gun part of it were actually made by him and it was never any other contention by the government or anyone they were travelling interstate commerce in any fashion as a machine gun  entirely advertising do is you've got to take a dremel tool or a file or michelle machine equipment and just follow wine and just take that metal out and that's all you got to do and if you want to sit there with a hand file and do it you'll have a fifty caliber rifle if you follow the line to grind it out when you're done and when you do that and he tells all the customers for proof it's easy anybody can do it you know only goes together one way and just put everything together you put a bullet in your fire it  paragraph the second half of the paragraph starting out by regulating the marketing machine yes and the way the government reads the curse decision is that it recognizes that there are times that one may be involved with simple intrust state possession of machine guns but that when one looks at the nature of machine guns it in this particular case because of the nature machine guns it is appropriate for the court for such weapons in what we're talking about here underage we're talking about machine guns we're not again we're not talking about slide rules you know i have no clue what you just said maybe  possession prohibition of possession yesterday says section nine twenty two zero on the other hand and prohibits the possession of all machine guns illegally transferred now does say it regulates the possession  trial i i want to direct attention to  inspector types in the types in the i think that's a license plate number into a computer and then the primary the primary inspector for cars coming into the united states verifies that the number on the computer screen is actually the number of the i'd like to  of process requirement i think it actually made clear in the record that if the government had seen fit to waive that requirement he could have done so but that was not the case today so i would begin with that and first and then i would say that i think the district court may have disagree with your opponent that he made a proffer to the district judge of proof of service by calling the investigator back to the courtroom did your opponent do that i don't for purposes of what we do from here so i'm offering to to prove to you that this investigator serve mr randall and i'll get him back here if you want and the district court never said i don't believe it i want to see the witness he went on from that which to me takes it as a given that the court said yeah you can prove that if i allow you to i'm just not going to let you know what's wrong with that as as an explanation of what was going on in the courtroom i'm not sure it actually kept the proffer i know that a up tomorrow the judge is going to say i think you're going to prove that but if he wants to make a profit or that i have a witness that i can produce to prove x and the judge doesn't take  me and we found he made a proper showing as a service are you dad or you have any other backup argument but i mean i think your honor said on an earlier i'm not sure that i would have gone anywhere because giving indications of consciousness of guilt and we have the details confession so apart and aside from the tech stock you know we have tons of evidence of supporting the conviction so i think it w