Main Content
Note Based on Staples
Morisette cites both Balint and Morissette in attempting to determine whether Congress intended for Section 5861(d) to be a strict liability offense. There are strong arguments on both sides here. On the one hand, the Court held in Freed, in interpreting the same statute at issue in Staples that one who handles grenades does so at his own risk. On the other, the Court points out that a 10 year sentence is a very long sentence to impose on someone in the absence of any proof of fault. Which argument do you find most compelling here?
Concluding that Section 5861(d) was not meant to be a strict liability offense is only the first step here. The Court concludes in its final paragraph that it must be shown that the defendant "knew of the features of his AR–15 that brought it within the scope of the Act." What, exactly, does that mean? What are some alternate knowledge requirements that could have been read into this statute?
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.