—concluded that the Government need not prove a defendant's knowledge of a weapon's physical properties to obtain a conviction under § 5861 (d).

Other courts have held that the purpose of the transcript is to assist the trier of fact in understanding the foreign language spoken on the audiotape

—evidence of defendant's conversation concerning gun purchase admissible to show in absence of mistake in prosecution for firearms violations

—although recognizing that the modifications to the defendant's weapons in that case were external, found that "the rationale underlying the court's holding in Herbert [to be] of questionable validity."

Six circuits, including ours, hold that conviction of a defendant for possessing an unregistered firearm does not require the government to prove that the defendant knew of the characteristics of the weapon that brought it within the registration requirement.

It is enough to prove he knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device of such type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation.

However, the majority of circuits have set a lower threshold, requiring only knowledge that the weapon was a firearm in the general sense

The fact that portions of the tapes are unintelligible is not necessarily an impediment to the admission of the tapes.

This instruction, when given to a jury with regard to a third-category recording, is neither realistic nor appropriate.

The admission of transcripts to assist the trier of fact lies within the discretion of the trial court.

[BOOK] The Supreme Court

[CITATION] Firearms law deskbook: federal and state criminal practice

[CITATION] Wiretapping and eavesdropping