Intent? We Don’t Need No Steenking Intent!
Back to the CNN felony story:
The Countertop Chronicles points out that INTENT has had very little influence on prior prosecutions by the BATF.
The simple fact is that CNN didn’t commit a common law crime, where mens rea is an element of guilt. No, instead they violated a statute that provides for strict liability, ir-regardless of intent.
Quoting 2nd Amendment lawyer Dave Kopel’s Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control, Countertop points to several firearms cases where a lack of “intent” was explicitly acknowledged – but prosecution, conviction, and sentencing went ahead anyway. I’d like to point out, too, the case of New Jersey v. Pelleteri. The New Jersey Supreme Court went so far in that case as to state:
This is an area in which “regulations abound and inquiries are likely,” and where the overarching purpose is to insure the public safety and protect against acts and threats of violence. State v. Hatch, 64 N.J. 179, 184, 313 A.2d 797 (1973); see also Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 248 A.2d 521 (1968). “[T]he dangers are so high and the regulations so prevalent that, on balance, the legislative branch may as a matter of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further requirement of mens rea or its equivalent.” State v. Hatch, 64 N.J. at 184-85, 313 A.2d 797. When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.
Too bad this sale didn’t occur in New Jersey. Mr. Griffin would find himself most probably under the jail.
For those of you who’ve been under a rock since Saturday, Triggerfinger has a pretty comprehensive list of links to the story so far.