Opinion ID: 2595475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Difficulty of Ascertaining Facts

Text: Courts have been justifiably reluctant to construe offenses carrying substantial penalties as containing no mens rea element where ... dispensing with mens rea would require the defendant to have knowledge only of traditionally lawful conduct. ( Staples, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 618, 114 S.Ct. 1793.) This interpretive guideline holds with particular strength when the characteristics that bring the defendant's conduct within the criminal prohibition may not be obvious to the offender. In Staples, for example, the federal statute at issue criminalized possession only of fully automatic firearms, but the briefing and record before the court indicated that many or most semiautomatic firearms may be converted by internal modification to fire automatically. ( Id. at pp. 612, fn. 6, 615, 114 S.Ct. 1793.) Observing that, certain military arms and notoriously criminal weapons aside, firearms, including semiautomatic firearms, enjoy a long tradition of widespread lawful ... ownership by private individuals in this country ( id. at p. 610, 114 S.Ct. 1793) and, despite their destructive potential, have been widely accepted as lawful possessions ( id. at p. 612, 114 S.Ct. 1793), the high court found it `unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding, well-intentioned citizens to a possible ten-year term of imprisonment if ... what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semi-automatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon.' ( Id, at p. 615, 114 S.Ct. 1793, ellipses and brackets in Staples. ) Similarly, in People v. Coria, supra, 21 Cal.4th at page 880, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 985 P.2d 970, construing a criminal bar on manufacturing methamphetamine to require knowledge that methamphetamine was being made, this court observed that, absent knowledge of the substance being synthesized, the conduct could be entirely innocent: Not all acts of chemical synthesis are illegal; only the manufacture of specific controlled substances is prohibited. Moreover, the chemical composition or potential illicit use of a substance is not necessarily obvious to participants, and unknowing participation in the manufacturing process was not inherently unlikely: the principal manufacturers of illicit drugs occasionally may employ naive, unsophisticated, and relatively unskilled helpers to assist in the manufacturing process. ( Id. at p. 881, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 985 P.2d 970.) The parties debate the application of these principles to construction of section 12280(b). The Attorney General maintains the weapons listed in section 12276 are highly dangerous offensive weapons which are unambiguously hazardous. Assault weapons are typically used by soldiers in a war.... The assault weapons listed in section 12276, like the SKS with detachable magazine, are not `ambiguous substances' such that a person would not be aware of the dangerous character of the weapon after looking at one. The minor, in contrast, again stresses that the AWCA restricts only a subset of semiautomatic firearms, leaving the remainder available for lawful uses such as hunting and target shooting, and that even those semiautomatic firearms classified as assault weapons may, if registered, be lawfully possessed and used for these purposes. (See § 12285, subd. (c).) On this point the minor has the better argument. The Attorney General may be correct that anyone who knew the firearm he or she possessed was an assault weapon would be likely to know it was potentially regulated or contraband. But this begs the question, for the issue is precisely whether a person violates section 12280(b) if he or she does not know the gun has the characteristics making it an assault weapon. (See Staples, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 609, 114 S.Ct. 1793 [the assumption a person knows the particularly dangerous character of the weapon cannot form the predicate for construction of the statute when, as in this case, the very question to be decided is whether the defendant must know of the particular characteristics bringing the firearm within the statutory prohibition].) As to whether the possessor of a weapon listed in section 12276 would, in all or most cases, be aware of the dangerous character of the weapon after looking at one, the Attorney General does not demonstrate, or even attempt to demonstrate, that the listed weapons are universally distinguishable by their appearance from firearms not listed in section 12276. Comparison of the photographs of listed rifles in the California Attorney General's Assault Weapons Identification Guide (1993) (hereafter Identification Guide) with photographs of unlisted rifles in a general reference work (Walter, Rifles of the World, supra ) fails to bear out the assumption. While many of the rifles depicted in the Identification Guide are of particularly menacing appearance, with folding or telescoping stocks, forward pistol grips, bullpup configuration or other unusual external features, others, with fixed wooden stocks and a relatively conventional rifle appearance, are not obviously unsuited, to the untrained eye at least, for hunting, ranching and farming uses, or target shooting. (See, e.g., Identification Guide at pp. 6 [Baretta AR-70], 7 [CETME Sporter], 18 [SKS with detachable magazine], 23 [Springfield Armory BM 59], 26 [Valmet M62S], 28 [Valmet M78S].) Conversely, several unlisted semiautomatic rifles have unusual military-type features and appear, again to the untrained eye, unlikely to be sporting or working guns. (See, e.g., Walter, Rifles of the World, supra, at pp. 384 [PMC Paratrooper], 404 [Ruger Mini-14/5RF], 442 [Universal Paratrooper], 439 [Stoner Model 63A1].) Nor can it be said that all semiautomatic rifles, or even all assault rifles, lack all lawful use, so that anyone in possession of one is overwhelmingly likely to be aware they are restricted or banned firearms. In a recent federal government study (U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles, supra ) professional hunting guides were surveyed on their clients' use of, and their own recommendations for, semiautomatic rifles in hunting. A large number of the guides reported that their clients have used semiautomatic rifles. The most common semiautomatic rifles used were those made by or on designs of Browning and Remington, but some listed weapons, including the SKS, AK-47, HK-91, SIG 550, and FN-FAL, were reported as used or recommended by individual clients or guides. ( Id., appen, survey results table.) From this and other sources, the study authors concluded the particular rifles being reviewed, variants on AK-47, FN-FAL, HK91 and 93, SIG SG550, and Uzi designs modified to eliminate some military configuration features but still accepting large capacity magazines, sometimes are used for hunting; however, their actual use in hunting is limited.... [W]hile these rifles are used for hunting medium and larger game, as well as for shooting varmints, the evidence was not persuasive that there was widespread use for hunting. ( Id. at pp. 16, 26-28.) The same study surveyed competitive shooting groups. Thirty-one such groups responded that they conducted events using high-power semiautomatic rifles. Of these, all but one permitted the use of the assault rifles under review for some or all competitions. One organization responded that in practical shooting events rifles with designs based on the AR15, AK47, FN-FAL, HK91, HK93 and others are allowed and must be used to be competitive. (U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles, supra, at pp. 28-29.) [8] Although the Treasury Department study focused on imported assault rifles, the authors note that certain competitive shooting events require use of United States military service rifles. ( Id. at p. 29.) Of the rifles listed in section 12276, at least two, the AR-15 and the BM59, are, or derive closely from, United States military service rifles. (Walter, Rifles of the World, supra, at pp. 233, 316-319.) Finally, we observe that section 12276 lists weapons primarily by manufacturer and model. Accordingly, the identification markings are the most important factor in determining if a particular firearm is an `assault weapon' within the meaning of section 12276. (Identification Guide, supra, Foreword.) Yet the Identification Guide also suggests markings may vary from gun to gun: Department of Justice staff has attempted to locate examples of each of the identified `assault weapons' to identify accurately the markings on them. However, some of the identified `assault weapons' were not physically located and some which were found were not marked as specified in Section 12276. (Identification Guide, supra, Foreword.) Accompanying the Identification Guide's photograph of a Valmet M78S (listed in § 12276, subd. (a)(16)) is the note, No firearm marked M78S has been located. However, the firearm pictured may be the M78S. A similar note accompanies the photograph of a SIG PE-57 (listed in § 12276, subd. (a)(12)). (Identification Guide, supra, at pp. 20, 28.) Consequently, although most firearms listed in section 12276 are likely to be readily identifiable, some instances in which the possessor of a semiautomatic firearm could reasonably be in doubt as to whether the weapon is subject to regulation under the AWCA are also likely. As the Legislature recognized (see § 12275.5), many semiautomatic weapons, including some of the listed assault weapons, have lawful uses; moreover, that a particular semiautomatic weapon is likely to be specially regulated as an assault weapon may not be readily apparent to all those who possess it. Thus, a construction of section 12280(b) that dispenses completely with scienter may result in the severe punishment of innocent possessors, a result we do not believe the Legislature intended.