Illegal intent required?

[NukemJim]

Was chatting with a lawyer, who stated he was an ex-federal prosecutor. We were discussing gun laws. When I asked why that more felons were not prosecuted under federal law due to the simplicity of the statue, that is merely picking up a gun for a prohibited person being a felon, someone with a history of domestic violence or drug abuse was enough to violate the law and make it eligible to prosecute the person. He stated that not only did they have to hold the gun but they had to have criminal intent. I am puzzled and confused any lawyers know what is going on?

 

[Howland937]

Agreed. You would think that picking it up, knowing that doing so is illegal, would constitute "criminal intent". Unless they don't know it's illegal?

Maybe a final exam of sorts, where felons are required to know what they are forbidden from doing before they're released from prison?

 

[TheWarhammer]

I'm gonna have to call BS on the lawyer you talked to.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf
https://www.richardhornsby.com/federal/crimes/felon-in-possession-of-firearm.html#:~:text=Under federal law, the crime,release, and $250,000 in fines.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm going to close this, for at least the time being. Staff will be discussing whether to re-open the thread.

The thing is that mens rea, the state of mind or intent necessary to support conviction for a crime, is complex and technical. As I've often pointed out, much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out." One needs to do the research, study cases, and do the reading.

A serious discussion of the subject is probably beyond the scope of this board.

So, for example:

...a defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime. Rather, the defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.”....

See U.S. v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 1991) in which Barron-Rivera's conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm was affirmed without him even having had to touch a gun. Barron-Rivera's claimed reversible error in that the government failed to prove the necessary intent.

1. The court of appeal noted, at 551:
   

   ...Barron-Rivera argued that the gun was in his wife's residence at the time he re-entered the United States and moved back into that residence. Accepting that contention, the district court, nonetheless, found that Barron-Rivera's possession of the firearm was voluntary because he permitted the firearm to remain in the house after he acquired knowledge of its presence....

   
   ​
2. In affirming the conviction, the court of appeal found, at 551 -- 552:
   

   ...In other words, by continuing to reside in the apartment in which the gun was located, he voluntarily and knowingly possessed the gun...

​