Opinion ID: 573746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Proposed Jury Instruction

Text: 7 Entrapment by estoppel applies when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official. United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 825 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139 (1985). 8 Mandel's proposed jury instruction for entrapment by estoppel misconstrued both the law and facts. It was properly rejected. 9 The government is not required to prove specific intent in order to convict for possession of an unregistered firearm. United States v. Herbert, 698 F.2d 981, 986 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 821 (1983); United States v. Thomas, 531 F.2d 419, 421 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 996 (1976). Nor is it required to prove that Mandel knew possession was against the law, or that the weapons must be registered. United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 607 (1971). The government's burden is carried if it proves that the defendant knew he was dealing with a dangerous device of such type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation. Thomas, 531 F.2d at 421 (citations omitted). The district court gave jury instructions that required the government to prove that the defendant knew that he possessed a firearm of such a type as would alert a person to the likelihood of regulation. (Appellee's Excerpt of Record at 3-4) Nothing more was required. 10 Mandel contends, however, that his reliance on Castellano's firearm license warrants giving his entrapment by estoppel instruction. He relies on our decision in United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767 (9th Cir.1987), which applied the estoppel defense to a defendant accused of purchasing six rifles while failing to report a prior felony conviction. 11 Mandel's proposed jury instruction overstates Tallmadge. The defendant in Tallmadge was told implicitly by a judge, and explicitly by his attorney, that he could purchase non-concealed weapons after his prior offense had been reduced to a misdemeanor. The defendant in Tallmadge bought his rifles from a federally licensed gun dealer who had an affirmative duty to check all buyers for criminal convictions. Id. at 774. Mandel was not told by an agent of the government that his actions were legal nor was he dealing with a person who had a similar affirmative duty. 12 Mandel's jury instruction was also factually misleading. It stated that Castellano was a federally licensed firearms manufacturer. (Appellant's Excerpt of Record at 91) This was not true. Castellano's license did not cover the type of weapons Mandel designed, and further, Castellano had failed to pay the special occupational tax required to maintain that license. 13 AFFIRMED.