United States v. Alan S. Hammond

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the “[s]tatutory coverage depends upon proof that a device is an explosive plus proof that it was designed as a weapon”
• cardboard tube filled with explosive powder was not designed as weapon and therefore was not destructive device under Federal statute; to establish that explosive is weapon, and therefore prohibited destructive device, requires “plus” factor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).