[GunLawyer001]

I think the defense has a point on the "silent discharge" issue, but as Jay points out, the Feds can still prosecute under the NFA if he beats the state charges. It's not double jeopardy, they are two separate statutes and two separate sovereign powers. Of course, they can do that even if he's convicted on the state charges.

"Silent" means "without sound", not "quieter". Just like "honest" means "without cheating", not "with less cheating"; or "less lively" is different than "dead". Comparative words are different than absolutes, and "silent" is an absolute.

Just because the state legislators couldn't tell their asses from a ported muzzle doesn't mean that the citizens have to read between the lines and figure out what they meant to say. Lots of laws make no sense as written, like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which allowed you to be shot with a post-ban gun but not the nearly identical pre-ban with a flash hider. Not much sense, but it was enforced as written.

Theres a rule of lenity in the criminal statutes, where ambiguities are construed in favor of the defendant. The state should never enforce a harsher law than a reasonable reading of the statute would indicate.