Court Opinion

ID: 9489047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:03:59.109541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:16.942186
License: Public Domain

NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The court candidly notes that “the issue is not without difficulty” and that both the Tenth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit have reached a conclusion opposite to that of the court. In the face of this division and difficulty it is not easy to see why the court prefers to eliminate proof of an element of knowledge that goes to the mens rea of the defendant.
*1315The court’s principal reliance appears to be on an offhand reference to sawed-off shotguns in Staples v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 1800, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994). This reference is hardly the kind of incidental illustration that should be dis-positive when the issue is squarely presented. Our jurisprudence has traditionally demanded proof of a criminal intent to obtain a felony conviction. Our belief in individual responsibility requires such proof. Purely regulatory crimes should be the exception. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250-62, 72 S.Ct. 240, 243, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). We succumb to a regulatory, bureaucratic mentality when we add one more regulatory crime to an increasing roster.