Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 511 U.S. 600
Tags: Criminal law, Strict liability, Mens rea
tl;dr:
Where a statute is ambiguous as to the mens rea requirement, but many innocent people would be implicated by a strict liability standard, the Court will not impute one.Video Summary
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Supreme Court ruled that to convict someone under the National Firearms Act, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knew the weapon they possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun. Offenses that require no mens rea are generally disfavored, and some indication of congressional intent is required to dispense with mens rea as an element of a crime. The Court distinguishes between guns and hand grenades, stating that guns have a long tradition of lawful ownership by private individuals in the United States. Therefore, knowledge of a weapon's characteristics may be required for a conviction under § 5861(d), which mandates registration of firearms, including machineguns, with the Federal Government.
The case involves the criminalization of possessing an unregistered firearm under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The level of knowledge required for a conviction is in question, with options being knowledge of possession, knowledge that the object is a dangerous weapon, or knowledge of specific characteristics subject to regulation. The government argues for the second option to avoid criminalizing innocent conduct, but this fails to consider lawful gun ownership and lack of comprehensive regulation. The holding in United States v. Freed that knowledge of the firearm's unregistered status is not required was based on the assumption that the defendant knew the items he possessed were hand grenades.
The legal case involves the conviction of the petitioner for possessing an unregistered machinegun, which falls under the category of "public welfare" crimes that regulate dangerous devices affecting public health, safety, or welfare. The absence of an express knowledge requirement in § 5861(d) suggests that Congress did not intend to require proof of the defendant's knowledge of all the facts that made their conduct illegal. The Court concludes that a gun is not the type of dangerous device that would alert one to the possibility of regulation. The petitioner's conviction for possession of an unregistered machinegun must be affirmed as our decisions interpreting such offenses clearly require it. However, Justice Stevens dissents from the Court's decision to add to the text of the Act, arguing that it substitutes the Court's views for Congress's judgment.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.