(a) The common-law rule requiring mens rea as an element of a crime informs interpretation of § 5861(d) in this case. Held: To obtain a § 5861(d) conviction, the Government should have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Staples knew that his rifle had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Government need not prove a defendant's knowledge of a weapon's physical properties to obtain a conviction under § 5861(d). He was convicted after the District Court rejected his proposed jury instruction under which, to establish a § 5861 (d) violation, the Government would have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Staples knew that the gun would fire fully automatically. At trial, Staples testified that the rifle had never fired automatically while he possessed it and that he had been ignorant of any automatic firing capability. e., a weapon that normally fires only one shot with each trigger pullthat had apparently been modified for fully automatic fire. Petitioner Staples was charged with possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of § 5861(d) after officers searching his home seized a semiautomatic riflei. § 5861(d), including a "machinegun," § 5845(a)(6), which is defined as a weapon that automatically fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger, § 5845(b). The National Firearms Act criminalizes possession of an unregistered "firearm," 26 U. However, these crimes are only those created by statute rather than those under the common law, and they generally consist of minor offenses that are regulatory in nature or connected to the public welfare.ĬERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT The knowledge requirement thus need not be presumed, and the crime may be classified as a public welfare offense.įor strict liability crimes, a defendant's ignorance of either fact or law is irrelevant. Common law rules about mental state elements did not necessarily apply because this is a statutory rather than common law crime. It was logically impossible to believe that the gun could have been converted into a machine gun without any knowledge by the owner. ![]() The exceptions are generally public welfare offenses that do not require a prison term, and this offense does not fit in that category. In most situations, criminal laws should not be construed to lack a mental state element unless there is legislative intent to the contrary. Examining the language of the statute and the apparent legislative intent, it becomes clear that Congress did not intend to criminalize ignorance by gun owners and impose long prison sentences on them. There is no reason to abandon the presumption that a defendant must know the underlying facts that form the basis of the crime. He renewed the argument on appeal under the theory that he was unaware that the gun could fire fully automatically, so he should not have been convicted for failing to register it. This instruction was denied, and Staples was convicted. ![]() When he was charged with unlawful possession of an unregistered machine gun under Section 5861(d) of the National Firearms Act, Staples sought a jury instruction requiring the prosecution to prove that he knew that the gun would fire fully automatically. The selector switch that prevents the rifle from rotating into the fully automatic position was filed away, and parts of military M-16 fully automatic rifles had been inserted. An AR-15 rifle is generally a semiautomatic weapon, but the BATF agents found that this rifle had been modified so that it was capable of fully automatic fire. Policemen and agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms discovered an AR-15 rifle when they carried out a valid search at the home of Staples.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |