United States v. White, No. 15-2027 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit granting rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion.
The court reversed the unregistered firearm conviction and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the holding in United States v. Barr, 32 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir. 1994), as to the mens rea required for a conviction under the National Firearms Act was wholly inconsistent with Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), and was therefore overruled. The court explained that by imposing strict criminal liability on owners of "quasi-suspect" guns—an undefined category that invites arbitrary application—Barr contravened the Supreme Court's view that Congress did not intend "to make outlaws of gun owners who were wholly ignorant of the offending characteristics of their weapons." Therefore, the court joined its sister circuits in holding that, in all cases in which a defendant is prosecuted under the National Firearms Act for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the physical characteristics of the weapon bringing the weapon within the ambit of the Act. In this case, the jury instructions failed to sufficiently apprise the jury of the government's burden.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, for the Court En Banc] Criminal case - Criminal law. For the panel opinion in the matter, see United States v. White, 824 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2016). The court overrules United States v. Barr, 32 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir. 1994), which held that where the characteristics of the weapon itself render it 'quasi-suspect,' Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994)does not require proof that the defendant knew of the specific characteristics of the weapon which make it subject to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(a), (f); held, in all cases in which a defendant is prosecuted under the National Firearms Act for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the physical characteristics of the weapon bringing the weapon within the ambit of the Act; here, the jury instructions failed to adequately convey the government's burden under Staples, and defendant's conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm is reversed; Section II of the panel opinion reversing defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen firearm is reinstated. Remanded for further proceedings.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 2, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.