Ignorance of the law CAN be an affirmative defense

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • shootersix

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    4,281
    113
    wow...i didnt know i couldn't convert my ar15 to full auto...(oh and you the batfe have to PROVE that!)
     

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    Huh, I wonder how this would now impact driving through neighboring states with different gun laws. Not that I would want to be a test case...
     

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    That decision is a serious departure from prior jurisprudence.

    Yeah, it kind of flies in the face of everything I've heard before and IANAL. Then again I've felt for a long time that we have so many laws that there is no way for a common citizen to know even what would be considered a small percentage of them.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,095
    113
    Texas
    While I am sympathetic to the decision based on a single reading of the majority opinion and haven't yet read the dissent, I do find it difficult to believe that the fellow at the bottom of all this didn't know he had overstayed his visa. But apparently the prosecution didn't argue that.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Yeah, it kind of flies in the face of everything I've heard before and IANAL. Then again I've felt for a long time that we have so many laws that there is no way for a common citizen to know even what would be considered a small percentage of them.

    Normally the mens rea (literally "guilty mind", but practically, what your mindset needs to be), on a possession crime (pick your prohibited object) is that you "knowingly or intentionally" possess the object. Up until now, unless the law specifically stated so, you did not have to "knowingly or intentionally possess an object you knew was illegal".

    In other words, the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly possessed a kilo of heroin AND it was illegal to possess it. 2 elements- knowing went to possession, not illegality.

    I guess now it's you knowingly possess the kilo with knowledge that it is illegal to have it- all of which the gubmint must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

    A kilo of heroin- pretty easy to raise the inference that you knew it was illegal (step 1- did you act like it was illegal?).

    Now imagine all of the other possession crimes- guns, drugs, etc., etc., etc.

    Now I am wondering about retroactivity.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    IMHO, this is also limited to areas in which the administrative law portion has basically swallowed the statutory provisions - like in immigration.

    Maybe BATFE stuff, but areas like SEC, FEC, maybe a few others, come to mind where the agencies create the actual rules that get violated, that then become crimes.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    38,993
    113
    Uranus
    hillary-clinton-does-the-shimmy.gif
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    IMHO, this is also limited to areas in which the administrative law portion has basically swallowed the statutory provisions - like in immigration.

    Maybe BATFE stuff, but areas like SEC, FEC, maybe a few others, come to mind where the agencies create the actual rules that get violated, that then become crimes.

    Admittedly, I have only read portions of the decision, but I read it much more broadly. It was decided on statutory construction grounds and stated that when "knowingly" is the mens rea it applies to all elements of the crime (except jurisdictional, for some reason) unless stated otherwise.

    Anyhoo, this seems interesting- from the dissent:

    The majority provides a bowdlerized version of the facts of this case and thus obscures the triviality of this petitioner’s claim. The majority wants readers to have in mind an entirely imaginary case, a heartless prosecution of “an alien who was brought into the United States unlawfully as a small child and was therefore unaware of his unlawful status.” Such a defendant would indeed warrant sympathy, but that is not petitioner, and no one has called to our attention any real case like the one the majority conjures up.

    Here is what really happened. Petitioner, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, entered this country on a visa that allowed him to stay here lawfully only so long as he remained a full-time student. He enrolled at the Florida Institute of Technology, but he withdrew from or failed all of his classes and was dismissed. After he was conditionally readmitted, he failed all but one of his courses. His enrollment was then terminated, and he did not appeal. The school sent him e-mails informing him that he was no longer enrolled and that, unless he was admitted elsewhere, his status as a lawful alien would be terminated. Petitioner’s response was to move to a hotel and frequent a firing range. Each evening he checked into the hotel and always demanded a room on the eighth floor facing the airport. Each morning he checked out and paid his bill with cash, spending a total of more than $11,000. This went on for 53 days. A hotel employee told the FBI that petitioner claimed to have weapons in his room. Arrested and charged under §922(g) for possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, petitioner claimed at trial that the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually knew that his lawful status had been terminated. Following what was then the universal and long established interpretation of §922(g), the District Court rejected this argument, and a jury found him guilty. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Out of the more than 8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari that we expected to receive this Term, we chose to grant this one to see if petitioner had been deprived of the right to have a jury decide whether, in his heart of hearts, he really knew that he could not lawfully remain in the United States on a student visa when he most certainly was no longer a student.
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    Ok, sooo... a few weeks ago, former President Obama was in South America telling them “Our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, any time, without much, if any, regulation. They can buy [guns] over the internet, they can buy machine guns.”

    A hypothetical illegal alien could have heard that speech and be unaware that we have gun laws regulating machine-guns, so does this decision mean that the NFA is no longer in effect?
     

    historian

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    3,301
    63
    SD by residency, Hoosier by heart
    I'm more following with T's logic on this. Additionally, the prosecution could have easily proved that the defendant knew he was illegally in the country based on the documents he was given and emailed. They just were lazy and didn't want to have to prove it. Now it goes back to trial again and the guy gets convicted again.

    My belief is that Gorsuch wants to make the government actually do their legal job rather than say, "well, everyone know it."
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    Proving that he knew he was in the country illegally is not enough. Under this decision, they would have to prove that he knew his immigration status made it illegal for him to possess a firearm.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    FBI director comey flat out said they didnt prosecute Killary and her ilk associates at state because they didnt believe they had intention to break the law. Which has been proven they did intend to and were aware of what they were doing and tried to conceal it.

    Pretty much for us regular folks if you get wrongly accused, we're screwed. If your rich and famous you'll most likely get slapped on the wrist if anything
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    Proving that he knew he was in the country illegally is not enough. Under this decision, they would have to prove that he knew his immigration status made it illegal for him to possess a firearm.

    That's why I think this was a good ruling. There are prohibited people out there who pass the NICS check and "in their heart of hearts" believe they are a-ok to possess guns, but who are actually technically prohibited. Sometimes they find this out only when "the man" gets involved in their life at a later date. They then get run up on the gun charges even though they thought they were legally allowed to have guns (since they passed their NICS check). I see this as making the application of gun-related laws a bit more fair. Perhaps we will see some overturned convictions?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    "Some" could be an understatement.

    "Almost every" one will be challenged.

    That's why Hough brings up the idea of retroactivity. There's a complicated analysis to determine if something like this will be applied to prior cases. I have professional experience with that analysis, and have decided that it is a crap shoot. One particular legal issue stands out in my mind in which there was a SCOTUS ruling that I absolutely believe SHOULD be applied retroactively, and it isn't.

    Of course, it involves immigration, too. There's just no way to figure out all the permutations of that body of law and agency regulation.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Of course, it involves immigration, too. There's just no way to figure out all the permutations of that body of law and agency regulation.

    At my last place of employment we had to become learned on just enough immigration law to prosecute one case. I learned just enough to know that I was never going to take the time to become an expert in that convoluted and politically charged area. I had also learned in an earlier CLE that the immigration courts are all paper based, so only subpoena the portions of an immigration case file you REALLY need.

    We ended up hiring an expert, a good guy from an Indianapolis firm.

    The immigration system is broken, and Congress does not have the gumption and the political ability and the money it would take to reform it. Thus, a slow, tangled process that causes some people to take shortcuts to get into and remain in the US (in addition to those who come here with no intention of going through the permanent resident process).

    My point: This is such a complicated area of law, I'm not sure how much application this will have to criminal law in general.


    ETA: Although I'm not sure how this is going to pan out, I have to agree that a lot of attorneys are certainly going to give it a try.
     
    Last edited:

    injb

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 17, 2014
    389
    28
    Indiana
    Proving that he knew he was in the country illegally is not enough. Under this decision, they would have to prove that he knew his immigration status made it illegal for him to possess a firearm.

    Are you sure about that? From the summary:

    In a prosecution under §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the Governmentmust prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm


    The way I read this, it doesn't say that you have to know that the "relevant category" is barred from possessing a firearm; it only says you have to know that you belong to that category.

    Also:

    We hold that the word “knowingly” applies both to the defendant’s conduct and to the defendant’s status. To convict a de-fendant, the Government therefore must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.

    Again, they don't hold that the word "knowingly" applies to the rule about illegal aliens being barred from possessing firearms - it just says that he had to know that he was in possession of a firearm, and that he was in the country illegally.
     
    Top Bottom