* * * any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.” Id. at 337, 92 S.Ct. 515 (quoting 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a), repealed by Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, Pub.L. No. 99-308, § 104(b), 100 Stat. 449, 459 (1986)). 8 . The dissent takes issue with this conclusion with respect to blank guns: "[bjecause a blank gun does not (and cannot) expel a projectile and cannot readily be converted to do so, its inclusion within the definition of a firearm undercuts the majority's conclusion that a weapon must meet those requirements to constitute a firearm.” We disagree with this assertion. Blank guns can, in some circumstances, readily be converted to expel a projectile. See United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 755, 756 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. 16,179 Molso Italian .22
holding that witness possessed specialized knowledge so as to qualify as an expert in commercial sexual exploitation of adults and juveniles holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge  holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge holding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendants 22caliber starter gun could readily be converted to expel a projectile without any specialized knowledge in less than an hour and in minutes by an expert holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings