Justices: Proof needed that person knew he couldn't have gun

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

15 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says prosecutors must prove that people charged with violating federal gun laws knew they were not allowed to have a weapon. The government says the decision could affect thousands of prosecutions of convicted criminals who are barred from having a firearm.

The court ruled 7-2 Friday in the case of a foreign student from the United Arab Emirates who took target practice at a Florida shooting range, even though he had been dismissed from the Florida Institute of Technology and was in the United States illegally. He was prosecuted under a law that bars people who are in the country illegally from having guns.

Prosecutors never proved that the student, Hamid Rehaif, knew he couldn’t have a gun, and lower courts ruled they didn’t have to.

The same law is also an important tool to keep guns away from convicted criminals. There were more than 6,000 convictions under the law during the government’s 2017 fiscal year, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

-snip-


Read more: https://apnews.com/aa9d3576f01a47108d15ee1efd63a708

---

Related: 17-9560 Rehaif v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States)

[grumpyduck]

1. What ever happened to

"ignorance of the law is no excuse?"

[hibbing]

2. That was my first thought

I'm far from a legal scholar, but seems like a bit of a pandora's box. I'll follow this thread, hopefully someone with a much bigger brain can explain the legal logic here.


Peace

[TryLogic]

5. Legal logic? With ultra conservative justices? Ha.

[targetpractice]

3. Gone. New precedent to exonerate Trump and associates in the future. n/t

[NCjack]

9. Yeah. That is what this is about -- to save and his crew from prison, because they ignorant. nt

[onenote]

22. So you think Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer want to save Trump from prison?

[NCjack]

33. No. They are excellent justices, who did something that I didn't do. They read the relevant

statute that requires that the charged person know the law.

I was wrong in shooting them from my hip. I withdraw my silly comment and thank you for correcting me.

[old guy]

15. Correct answer.

[onenote]

16. So Alito and Thomas (the dissenters) were on the right side?

And Ginsburg, Sotmayor, Kagan, Breyer, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on the wrong side?

[old guy]

20. In my opinion, yes.

[onenote]

21. Have you read the opinion?

[old guy]

24. Yes.

[onenote]

26. And you think someone who was in this country legally should be convicted

if it turns out his legal status has changed even if he doesn't know that his legal status has changed?

Seems a bit harsh.

[old guy]

28. It is not about being harsh, it's about breaking the law, which he did.

[onenote]

30. You don't understand the concept "knowingly" in the law.

That much seems pretty clear.

Here's a hypothetical. Congress passes a law saying it is unlawful if a person knowingly apply for student loan if their great great grandfather was a convicted felon. Should the government be able to convict someone who applied for a student loan without establishing that the person knew about their great great grandfather's felony conviction?

[old guy]

34. Boy, it took longer than I thought for you to get around to telling me I don't get it.

I just hope you didn't pull a muscle reaching that far for that hypothetical. See ya 'round.

[onenote]

36. A non-denial denial. Got it.

[Igel]

8. I'm going to say that there's going to be a gut-level "they should know" response.

For some crimes. Others, not so much. It's a real problem in a culture where distrust and retribution are key virtues. And where prosecutors will use ancillary laws to try to punish people for alleged crimes there's not sufficient evidence to convict over. We hate the guilty to not be punished--it's sort of a human thing--and if there's no official way to convict for the actual crime, we'll allow substitutionary, vicarious punishment--and if we're wrong, meh, down the memory hole it goes.

In many ways the US is pushing towards being the USSR: There are so many laws that are so rarely enforced, so many laws that apply to certain categories of activities and people, that there's no way to know what all of them are until somebody decides to enforce them and you're charged. You switch categories--from employee to business owner, for instance--and suddenly there are thousands of laws and regulations to be aware of, and you're at the mercy of the government.

But it is a slippery slope, because you want this kind of "ignorance is an excuse" to apply to the myriads of petty laws and offences, but not serious ones. Hence the "gut-level" exit ramp off the slope. "What, it wasn't legal to run that person over with a combine? Who knew?" "But you knew vehicular manslaughter is a crime." "Yes, but I've never seen a combine used as a vehicle, so I can't be held guilty." Fail. Having a common set of references and background helps with this, but that's such an atavistic point of view that we're left with zero tolerance of picayune regs and legalisms. Given the plethora of such edicts, each adult American individual winds up guilty of, as one pundit commended years ago, committing on average 1-3 felonies a day that they're unaware of.

There was a case a while back that makes my point. There was a bar owner who wanted to make different kinds of flavored vodka. So he'd open a bottle, add whatever flavoring materials (seeds, leaves, whatever) and seal it up to let it infuse. Except that it was illegal in that state to keep any liquor in any adulterated state in its original bottle. It would have been okay if he'd put the vodka in unmarked bottles, at least as far as that particular law goes. (That goes not just for bartenders, by the way. You want to make your own citrus vodka by putting citrus peel in the vodka bottle after taking out a shot, you've run afoul of the law and could be arrested.) I'm not sure where citizens are routinely told this or if bartending school makes a big deal out of this. It was a law that dated back quite a few decades and hadn't been enforced, anywhere in the state, for a few decades. I note that you can buy juniper extract for flavoring your own neutral spirits to produce gin, for example. And I'm steeping juniper in neutral spirits to make borovicka--but as far as I know, this is legal in Texas. (And if I'm wrong and get arrested for it, I hope this precedent counts. I'm not even sure where I'd look to see if this was legal!)

[mr_lebowski]

52. +1 great post mate! (nt)

[qazplm135]

10. depends on the type of crime

There are general intent and specific intent crimes.

The former are easier to prove, you just have to intend the act that causes the crime, not the crime itself.

But specific intent crimes require an actual intent to be proved. That can require in some circumstances knowledge that you are committing a crime and in fact intended to commit a specific crime.

So, long story short, I'm guessing this was probably a specific intent crime that required an intent to use a gun when not allowed to.

Edit: and upon reading the case, yep, the statute requires that an accused "knowingly" violated the statute.
If he didn't know about it, he can't knowingly violate it."

[sarisataka]

23. It doesn't seem

The person in question is a convicted felon

[24601]

29. You are probably right that most people would know felons cannot have guns. In this case, the

defendant, Hamid Rehaif, was not a felon. The provision prohibiting gun access was due to his status as a person "...being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States...."

Rehaif entered the US on a student visa. After he was no longer a student, his school had informed him that remaining in the US lawfully required re-enrollment. It's reasonable to infer that he likely understood he no longer had legal status. What isn't as reasonable is that he knew that his change in legal status also made possession of a gun or ammunition illegal.

Conviction under this statute requires that the accused knowingly violated the law. There are four elements of proof that would need to be substantiated:
1. Rehaif was not in the US lawfully,
2. Rehaif knew that he was not in the US lawfully;
3. During the time he was not in the US lawfully, Rehaif possessed a firearm or ammunition, and
4. Rehaif knew that the law prohibited firearm/ammunition possession by anyone not in the US lawfully.

I disagree with comments implying this was a right-wing decision. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh as well as CJ Roberts. Only Alito & Thomas dissented.

[catrose]

47. Sorry. I figured it was the usual. I'll delete.

[hack89]

31. There are significant exceptions to that.

In Lambert v. California (1957), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person who is unaware of a malum prohibitum law cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability he could have known the law existed. It was subsequently ruled in United States v. Freed (1971) that this exception does not apply when a reasonable person would expect their actions to be regulated, such as when possessing narcotics or dangerous weapons.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat#Exceptions

[former9thward]

48. It was never there in many laws.

Only in the movies and TV. Intent is a requirement in many laws.

[Blue_Tires]

55. +1

[TryLogic]

4. So, ignorance of the law is now an excuse? Or is it just about gun laws?

[RockRaven]

7. I suspect it is all about guns for the conservative justices...

I mean, substitute African-American for UAE student, and narcotics for guns, and ask yourself if you could see the conservative justices ruling the same way. I don't.

The guiding principle for SCOTUS cons when it comes to guns is: rule in such a manner as to maximize gun access/ownership, and don't sweat how ridiculous, disingenuous, or dishonest the reasoning given for said ruling is.

[onenote]

18. Two of the most consevative justices dissented

The four liberal justices were part of the majority.

[RockRaven]

37. The context of my comment makes it clear I am speaking of the cons in the majority,

and to the degree that one wishes to point to the dissenters as evidence that all SCOTUS cons aren't similarly motivated on gun issues, I would point out that the dissenters dissented already knowing the outcome of the ruling, secure in the knowledge that this particular gun control measure is being undermined by the other justices and they are free to be reflexively oppositional to the liberal wing, flex their authoritarian muscles, and maintain their anti-defendant posture without risking a missed opportunity to proliferate guns.

[onenote]

40. Since there was only one majority opinion

are you saying that the reasoning in Justice Breyer's opinion was ridiculous, disingenuous or dishonest?

[RockRaven]

41. No, I'm saying the cons who signed onto it did so b/c they like the outcome.

Outcome comes first, reasoning is secondary.

[onenote]

43. So you're saying that the liberal judges had it right and the conviction was correctly overturned.

[FiveGoodMen]

25. Just about guns, I'm sure.

Nice to see how many of us had the same first thought, anyway.

[hack89]

32. There have been major exceptions to that since 1957

In Lambert v. California (1957), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person who is unaware of a malum prohibitum law cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability he could have known the law existed. It was subsequently ruled in United States v. Freed (1971) that this exception does not apply when a reasonable person would expect their actions to be regulated, such as when possessing narcotics or dangerous weapons.[14]

[Opel_Justwax]

6. So I guess that they have to prove I knew an armed robbery was against the law to convict me?

[qazplm135]

11. no

This offense had a knowingly element to it:

"It specifies that a defendant commits a crime if he “knowingly” violates §922(g)... The term “knowingly” is normally read “as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime.”

You cannot commit a crime "knowingly" if you don't know it's a crime.

Robbery doesn't require a "knowingly" element.

When these kind of laws are passed, it's because the legislature does not want to make it a crime that you can accidentally do.
They only want to prosecute knowing violations. It's a choice a legislature can make.

[FBaggins]

12. All of the "ignorance of the law" posts misunderstand the situation

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2019, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)

That principle assumes that the government has done its job such that a reasonable person should be aware of the law.

As an example, consider the Miranda decision from half a century ago. The law (in this case the 5th Amendment) says that you are not obligated to incriminate yourself when police question you. You don't have to answer questions at all.

But let's say that you're ignorant of that fact and end up saying something that gets you convicted. If the officer did not "mirandize" you and inform you of your right to remain silent, can he claim that your ignorance of 5A is no excuse? Nope! The government has an affirmative duty to inform you of that fact before questioning you... or your ignorance absolutely is a defense.

[targetpractice]

17. Thanks for that explanation, FBaggins...

... the most important new thing I've learned in a while.

[moonseller66]

44. I imagine it's written somewhere...

that a person has to be told (to his physical person) he's not allowed to take another's life.

The new criminal code would involve 330 million copies of thousands of pages we need to make sure all people sign off on. Possibly Ed McMahan (RIP or someone currently alive) could hand out the copies of the laws with the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. That way there won't be any confusion or need for law suits!

Do I need to state this is sarcasm?

[ananda]

14. Yes it does sound like manipulative precedent setting.

Uggghhh

[onenote]

19. So you think Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan were engaged in "manipulative

precedent setting"?

Did you read the majority decision?

[onenote]

27. I really wish people would take the time to read the decision before commenting

The article is misleading to the say the least. The majority (made up of the liberal wing of the court plus Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) did not hold that the defendant had to know he couldn't have a gun. It held that were the law imposes a "knowingly" element, the defendant must be shown to have the requisite knowledge of each element of the crime.

In this instance, the law makes it a crime for someone knowingly to possess a firearm while in the country illegally.
The defendant knew he had a gun. What wasn't established was that he knew he was in the country illegally. (He had entered the country legally on a nonimmigrant student visa but apparently his status changed). If it had been shown that he knew of his illegal status, he would have been convicted whether or not he knew that it is unlawful for someone to have a gun and be in the country illegally.

[sarisataka]

35. But gunz

Some think ownership should be life imprisonment or death.


If I read the story correctly, the man only "possessed" the gun at the range. I don't see anything saying he purchased it.

[ripcord]

50. I don't understand how the lower courts could have got it so wrong

The statute actually says knowingly.

[moonseller66]

39. Kinda like the DUI laws...

Honest your worship, I didn't really know if I had 12 beers in 20 minutes, got drunk, tried to drive home at high speed, crossed the center line and killed a family on their way to somewhere that wasn't allowed. No one told me.

It really wasn't premeditated, cause I didn't really know you couldn't drink drunk and drive...really!

Did it say that in the manual for learning to drive? Don't remember the tester telling me I couldn't drink and drive. He did say something about having to turn on headlights at night.

I'll bet not everyone knows you can't drink drunk and drive. Should be a law, uh huh.

Can I go now? I'm late for Happy Hour!

Is there ANYONE who doesn't know you can't drink and drive? And if so, why isn't it premeditated? Dead people because of drunk drivers who get away with minor sentences...and will continue to drink and drive even with a suspended license.

Sorry for the rant. Stupid, moronic decision by the Court.

I guess this means I can't set off my Wile E. Coyote Acme Atomic Bomb in my own back yard since no one told me I couldn't!

[onenote]

42. Why don't you try reading the decision before acting like you know what it says.

It didn't reverse the defendant's conviction because he didn't know it was unlawful for someone who is in the country illegally to possess a firearm. It reversed it because the government made no effort to prove that he knew he was in the country illegally. If they had done so, he would have been convicted whether or not he knew that there was a law against him possessing a firearm.

The Court gives a couple of other examples: a person brought to the US as a child who may not know their immigration status. Or, under the provision of the law that makes it unlawful to possess a gun if you've been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, a defendant is convicted even though they were sentenced to probation and had no knowledge that the crime for which they were convicted could've resulted in a year in jail.

He didn't violate the law not because he didn't know the law but because the government didn't prove the elements of the crime: knowingly possessing a firearm (that one they proved) and knowingly not being in the country legally (that one the government incorrectly claimed it didn't have to prove).

[moonseller66]

45. Read it...Actually Understood it.

Was making a point about the way some laws are written.

Before I was told I didn't understand it.

Good thing you told me.

[Sancho]

46. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[madville]

49. Great decision

"Knowingly" is the key word here.

Take the feelings about guns out of the equation, it makes perfect sense.

[AncientGeezer]

51. Correct decision...and glad it was 7-2...should have been 9-0

[Hoyt]

53. Fortunately, all the white wing gun-humpers won't get away with this because

they can quote every gun law and pertinent ruling protecting their “right” to tuck gunz in their pants to go to ChuckEcheese, and have as many lethal weapons at home as needed to get them off.

[reACTIONary]

54. "Knowledge of the Law" is not the issue...

... it is knowledge of his legal status that is the issue. The law states that the offender must knowingly be an illegal alien. The government must therefore prove that he knew he was.

The law itself specifies the requirement of knowledge. So the remedy, if needed, would be to legislatively remove the requirement.

This is no big deal, folks.

[eppur_se_muova]

56. Meanwhile, a woman who didn't know felons can't vote is in jail.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142147667

[onenote]

57. Completely different situation - there was no question she knew she was a felon

In the case ruled on by the Supreme Court there was no evidence that the defendant knew he was in the country illegally. If the prosecution had put such evidence forward, his conviction would have been upheld whether or not he knew that individuals in the country illegally cannot possess firearms.