Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Richard Harold Tous

United States v. Richard Harold Tous, 461 F.2d 656 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-05-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (possessing an unregistered machine gun) and a sentence of one year’s probation. We affirm. The first point asserts that a conviction cannot stand without evidence that the defendant received or transported the firearm through interstate commerce. Interstate activity, however, is not an element of the crime under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. The statute is silent on the score of commerce.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Richard Harold Tous. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions
UNITED STATES v. TOUS,461 F.2d 656(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RICHARD HAROLD TOUS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1209.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 5, 1972.
Page 657
Michael D. Nasatir, of Nasatir, Sherman Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Leslie E. Osborne, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before HAMLEY, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is an appeal from a conviction under26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (possessing an unregistered machine gun) and a sentence of one year's probation. We affirm.

[2] The first point asserts that a conviction cannot stand without evidence that the defendant received or transported the firearm through interstate commerce. Interstate activity, however, is not an element of the crime under26 U.S.C. § 5861. The statute is silent on the score of commerce. It is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to tax. United States v. Giannini,455 F.2d 147(9th Cir. 1972).

[3] The second point is that, because he was unaware of the statute's amnesty and registration provision, the defendant was unable to comply with the registration clause of the statute. Ignorance of the statute's amnesty provisions is no defense. Congress can impose upon those who keep machine guns a reasonable duty to inquire about the obligations that may accompany such possession.SeeUnited States v. Freed,401 U.S. 601, 609-610, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971).

[4] Affirmed.Page 659