argues that it would have been impossible for him to register his silencer and pipe bombs. Therefore, he argues that his convictions under Counts I through V should be reversed. We disagree. First, Mr. Gambill argues that he established at trial that the Government would not permit registration of a silencer or a pipe bomb. He relies upon the fact that several agents testified that they did not know of the Government permitting such registration. No statute, however, categorically prohibits the possession of a pipe bomb or silencer. United States v. Dodge, 852 F.Supp. 135, 137 (D.Conn.1994); see also United States v. McCollom, 12 F.3d 968, 970-71 (10th Cir.1993) (limiting Dalton holding to prosecutions involving machine guns); United States v. Rivera, 58 F.3d 600, 602 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, none of the agents who testified
holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right holding that a sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against the defendant holding machine guns are distinguishable from silencers because there is no statutory ban against registration of silencers holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify