Opinion ID: 2353269
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possession of a Prohibited Weapon

Text: Appellants were convicted of possessing the semi-automatic Beretta handgun found at 1520 Holbrook Street in violation of (former) D.C.Code § 22-3214(a). [13] In pertinent part, the statute provides that [n]o person shall within the District of Columbia possess any machine gun. . . . A machine gun for this purpose is any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading. (Former) D.C.Code § 22-3201(c). [14] The detective who recovered the Beretta testified that its magazine contained fifteen rounds of ammunition and that the weapon test-fired approximately thirteen times without being reloaded. Uncontroverted, this testimony was sufficient proof that the Beretta qualified as a machine gun under the statutory definition. Moore argues that in order to convict him of violating § 22-3214(a), the government had to prove that he was aware of the specific physical characteristics that made the Beretta a prohibited weapon under the statute  i.e., that he knew the Beretta could be fired more than twelve times without reloading. In making this argument, Moore relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994), which construed the National Firearms Act to require proof of such mens rea. Although we deal here with a different statute, there is some support for Moore's argument in our case law as well; see Turner v. United States, 684 A.2d 313, 315 (D.C.1996) (stating that under § 22-3214(a), the government had to prove that appellant knowingly and intentionally possessed a machine gun). In In re D.S., 747 A.2d 1182, 1187 (D.C. 2000), however, we rejected the argument that Moore now advances. That case concerned a prosecution under § 22-3214(a) for possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Invoking Staples, the appellant in D.S. contended that the government was required to prove that he knew the shotgun found in his possession had a barrel length of less than 20 inches, which is the defining characteristic of a sawed-off shotgun for purposes of § 22-3214(a). [15] We disagreed. The premise of the statute is that certain weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, are so highly suspect and devoid of lawful use that their mere possession is forbidden (with an exception for legitimate military or law enforcement use). United States v. Brooks, 330 A.2d 245, 247 (D.C.1974). Appreciating that Congress intended to create a general intent crime, such that the mere possession of certain enumerated weapons is unlawful, we held it sufficient for the government to demonstrate . . . that D.S. knowingly and intentionally possessed a shotgun and that that shotgun's barrel in fact was less than twenty inches in length. D.S., 747 A.2d at 1186. [16] In other words, under the statutory scheme that Congress enacted for the District of Columbia, anyone who knowingly and intentionally possesses a weapon in this jurisdiction does so at his or her own risk; in effect, the law obligates such a person to make sure the weapon is not of the prohibited variety. [17] On the authority of D.S., we hold that the government was not required to prove that appellants knew the firing capabilities of the Beretta handgun recovered at 1520 Holbrook Street in order to convict them of possession of a prohibited weapon. It sufficed for the government to prove that appellants knowingly and intentionally possessed the gun and that the weapon in fact had the characteristics of an operable machine gun.