Opinion ID: 6150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: APPLICATION OF Sec. 5861(d) TO DEFENDANT

Text: 42 Defendant was convicted under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d), which makes it unlawful for any person to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Defendant argues that his conviction under Sec. 5861(d) violates due process guaranteed him by the Fifth Amendment because the government would have rejected his application had he made one since the law precludes registration of the firearm in question. In support of this argument, defendant cites United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir.1992), and Publication 603, a 1974 publication from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). 43 In Dalton, the Tenth Circuit analyzed the relationship between 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(o), enacted in 1986 to outlaw the possession of any machinegun after its effective date, and Sec. 5861(d), which imposes tax and registration obligations for certain firearms, including machineguns. The defendant in Dalton was convicted under Sec. 5861(d) & (e), respectively, for possessing and transferring an unregistered machinegun made after the effective date of Sec. 922(o). Id. at 122. The court held that due process barred the defendant's conviction because Sec. 5861(d) mandated the registration of a firearm that the government refused to register due to the ban on machineguns imposed by Sec. 922(o). In other words, the court concluded that compliance with both statutes is impossible. Id. at 122-23; contra United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176, 182-83 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2351, 124 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993). 44 Regardless of whether Dalton embodies a correct statement of the law, it offers no help to defendant, who was convicted of possessing a short-barreled shotgun, not a machinegun. Unlike newer machineguns, short-barreled shotguns still may be possessed legally if registered properly. See 18 U.S.C. Secs. 921-928. Thus, even if Dalton is correct as to the class of machineguns made illegal by Sec. 922(o), the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in Dalton does not encompass short-barreled shotguns, which can be possessed legally under federal law if registered. United States v. Aiken, 974 F.2d 446, 448-49 (4th Cir.1992). 45 Without Dalton, defendant's argument rests on ATF Publication 603, which correctly states that private citizens in possession of unregistered firearms cannot register them. 14 Under the statutory scheme, the transferor must register the weapon in the name of the transferee before delivery; only then may delivery occur lawfully. United States v. Coleman, 441 F.2d 1132, 1133 (5th Cir.1971). Thus, it is true that a transferee may be prosecuted for possessing an unregistered firearm even though he himself cannot comply with the registration requirement. United States v. Bright, 471 F.2d 723, 726 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 2742, 37 L.Ed.2d 148 (1973); United States v. Sedigh, 658 F.2d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 921, 102 S.Ct. 1279, 71 L.Ed.2d 462 (1982) (statutory scheme requires that transferee not take possession until transfer and registration approved). According to defendant, this result offends due process. 46 This Court disagrees. As we explained some years ago in United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 868, 93 S.Ct. 167, 34 L.Ed.2d 118 (1972): 47 Section 5861(d) making possession of an unregistered weapon unlawful is part of the web of regulations aiding enforcement of the transfer tax provision in [26 U.S.C.] Sec. 5811. Having required payment of a transfer tax and registration as an aid in collection of that tax, Congress under the taxing power may reasonably impose a penalty on possession of unregistered weapons. Such a penalty imposed on transferees ultimately discourages the transferor on whom the tax is levied from transferring a firearm without paying the tax. 48 Through this statutory scheme, Congress encourages compliance by rendering as contraband any firearm transferred without prior registration, Aiken, 974 F.2d at 448, and no transferee can 'purify' the 'tainted' weapon by registering it after transfer. United States v. Aiken, 787 F.Supp. 106, 108 (D.Md.1992). While defendant may dispute the fairness or efficacy of this enforcement mechanism, [t]he requirement that a transferee must refuse to accept possession of an unregistered firearm is rationally designed to aid in the collection of taxes imposed by other provisions of the Act. Id., aff'd, 974 F.2d 446 (4th Cir.1992). 49 In sum, Sec. 5861(d) is not unconstitutional as applied to defendant. 15 50 We REVERSE the judgment of conviction and REMAND the case to the District Court.