Whether the District Court erred in refusing to allow evidence of ATF's changed interpretation of solencer classification and in allowing a potentially prejudicial video and text messages to be presented to the jury

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the District Court, Erred When It Refused to Allow Evidence of the Fact That the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter ATF), Did Not Adequately Disseminate That They Changed Their Interpretation of Whether Solvent Traps Sold Commonly to the Public as a Firearm Accessory Would Now be Considered Silencers and Therefore Illegal Under the National Firearms Act. 2. Whether the District Court Erred by Allowing the Case to go to the Jury When There Was Not Sufficient Evidence to Conclude That the Appellant Had Sufficient Mens Rea to Commit the Offense of Possession of a Firearm. 3. Whether the Appellant Could Not Be Legally Convicted of Possession of a Firearm Because the Appellant Was Employed by a Licensed Gun Dealer Who Has a Type 07 FFL License. 4. Whether, the District Court Erred When it Allowed the Presentation of a Video of an Unknown Individual Shooting What Appeared to be a Silencer Into the Ground Along With Irrelevant Unfairly Prejudicial Text Messages, Tainted the Trial Such That a New Trial Should be Granted.