Thomasian

DISCUSSION

Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622, 624-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Challenges to the constitutionality of a stat- ute are questions of law and are also reviewed de novo. United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 572 (2002).

[1] The National Firearms Act defines a destructive device as, “any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, UNITED STATES v. ONE SENTINEL ARMS STRIKER- 8641 or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secre- tary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes[.]” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)(2) (emphasis added). Thomasian argues that according to the doctrine of the last antecedent, the clause “which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting pur- poses,” modifies “shotgun shell,” but not “shotgun.” Thus, the statute would categorically exclude all shotguns from the defi-…