Writing for a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Kozinski (the one certifiably sane member of that circuit) has the following rather amusing footnote, thanks to someone writing for the 5th Circuit.
Ken
The case (US v. Serna) was an appeal of a sentence enhancement due to a prior conviction for possession of an "assault weapon". The panel reversed that enhancement on the grounds that possession of a cosmetically-challenged gun didn't constitute a "crime of violence" under the sentencing guidelines.For purposes of the registration requirement, Congress defines as “firearms” many weapons that are not technically firearms, such as silencers, bombs, grenades and mines. “In short, the term [firearm] as used in the Act bears little if any correspondence to that in common usage, much as though the word ‘animal’ were defined in some supposititious National Zoo Act to exclude all mammals, reptiles and birds except lions and tigers, but to include freight trains, teddy bears, feather-boas and halltrees.”
United States v. Anderson, 885 F.2d 1248, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc).
Ken