that takes in excess of four to six hours” could not be “ready,” Dissenting Opinion (“Dissent.Op.”) at 427-28, this contention lacks meaning because it is too abstract and fails to consider what “readily restored” means in the context of a highly complex firearm. The decisions of several other courts make clear that the Defendant weapon, which would require, according to Alverson’s own expert, a maximum of six hours to convert to fire automatically, “can be readily restored” under the NFA. The Eighth Circuit held that a semiautomatic rifle that would take an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop to convert to shoot automatically qualified as a “machinegun” under the NFA. Smith, 477 F.2d at 400; cf. United States v. Shilling, 826 F.2d 1365, 1367 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); S.W. Daniel, Inc., 831 F.2d at 254-55
holding that public safety exception applied when police asked while handcuffing the defendant whether any guns were present holding that guns located in trunk of car were carried under statute holding that disassembled guns that could be made to shoot automatically were readily restorable holding the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement where guns were found on the same premises from which the defendant trafficked drugs and were readily accessible to the defendant holding that evidence of the defendants connection to the guns suggests possession of the drugs found next to the guns