Comments by Len Savage: The ATF did two things here during this case: 1.) ATF examined every gun in his inventory [by flying out a firearms technology branch expert]. Many were forwarded to FTB for further "testing". The ATF took a semi version of the M-14 and the ATF, not Mr. Kwan and made a machine gun out of it. The ATF claimed it was a machinegun because it was made from a MG, "once a machine gun always a machine gun", and that it was also "readily restorable" as well, and it only took a small arms expert, in a government research facility about 30 minutes to make it fire full auto. 2.)The ATF later added a superseded charge of an un-registered Short Barrel Rifle because Mr Kwan had a Heckler and Koch VP-70 model M [machine gun], with factory "Holster/Stock" [plastic version of Luger or high power wooden holster/stock], a spare "Holster/Stock", and a VP-70 model Z [semi only]. All perfectly legal. During the attempts to take Mr. Kwan's FFL the local ATF office came to gather ANY "post dealer samples" or machine guns made after May 19, 1986. The ATF own records [National Firearms Registry, and Transactions Record or NFRTR] is incomplete, and filled with errors. The ATF took Mr Kwan's VP-70 M machine gun stating ATF records indicated it was a "post dealer sample" [though later found to be imported in 1977 as a dealer sample]. They left the spare holster stock, and the Semi version. ATF later charged Mr. Kwan for "otherwise combined" or constructive possession, because the ATF was able to attach the Holster/Stock to the Semi VP-70 during a second visit. There is going to be a hearing on Aug 3 over this Short Barrelled Rifle, because it appears perjury DID occur during the trial [by ATF]. I see a retrial on the SBR charge at very least, This may even get set aside. The ATF took what was a legal "equation" of parts and firearms, took specific items by force, then later charged the man with an "illegal combination" for the remaining parts they did not take the first time. US v. Thompson center is on point here.