This is sort of a recylceld post of mine but is still as relevant here.
I do love to debate these fine points but we need to keep this in perspective. All cases so far have been mere tack ons with other charges as already pointed out. In addition the level of study that posters here have exhibited go way beyond what a judge or jury would ever attempt. In fact a typical juriest may not have the mental capacity required to grasp the subject.
As a case in point the following I got off James Bardwell's site (he has given me permission in the past to copy this stuff to the boards).
U.S. v. Indelicato, 964 F.Supp. 555 (D.Mass 1997)
In this case, the court construes the "grandfather" clause of the assault weapon ban, 18 USC 922(v). The court believes that the weapons are only grandfathered to the owner as of the date of enactment of the ban, 9/13/94, and that no other person may lawfully possess them, ever. No weapon grandfathered as of that date may be transferred and possessed as other weapons may be. Therefore the judge decides that the brother of the defendant, whose guns were not subject to seizure, may not get a semi-auto Uzi model A back from the government, as the brother may not legally possess it, as he did not have it on the grandfather date, the defendant did.
So how bout that? Think some piece of paper saying it was a pre-ban would have done any good? No cause that was not important. What was important in this case is that Judge could not read? So what if your judge is too damn lazy to read one freaking paragraph? Heck remember the guy that was busted for having both a short pistol barrel and a rifle barrel for his Contender?
I just wonder if you follow the law and are the only one in the court that has read it who cares? Sort of like if a tree falls and no one hears it.
If you follow this to its logical conclusion you should not own an assault rifle. It is clearly illegal under 18 USC section 922(v). Or say a rifle and a hack saw. Yeah that was sarcastic.
My point is that you can carry this so far and it get a little weird. BTW all of my pre-bans are verifiable with documentation, and I very much like it that way.