Whether the government must prove that a defendant knew the specific characteristic of a firearm that subjected it to registration under the National Firearms Act, even when the defendant only constructively possessed the firearm

QUESTION PRESENTED In Staples v. United States, the Court held that to obtain a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), the government was required to prove that the defendant possessed an unregistered firearm and knew the characteristic of the firearm that subjected it to registration under the National Firearms Act, even though the statute did not contain a mens rea element. 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994). In this case, the characteristic that made the firearm subject to registration was the fact that it had a bore over one half inch in diameter. The government never contended that White had actual possession of the firearm, only that he constructively possessed the firearm, which was concealed in a duffel bag in a bedroom closet at his parents’ home. There was no evidence that White ever handled the gun, saw the gun, or spoke of the gun in a manner suggesting he was familiar with the weapon and knew its bore width. The district court found White guilty, concluding, “the person possessing the gun is easily aware of the bore being more than a half inch.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that in the absence of direct evidence, a district court can infer the requisite knowledge of the physical characteristics of the firearm from the condition of the firearm, including any i external indications signaling the nature of the weapon, if constructive possession is established. United States v. White, 915 F.3d 1195, 1199 (8th Cir. 2019). This Court should accept certiorari to resolve a circuit split among the Courts of Appeals concerning the application of Staples in cases involving constructive possession of firearms with observable characteristics. The First, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits require evidence that the defendant saw or handled the firearm before permitting an inference that the defendant knew the characteristic of a weapon that made it subject to registration. United States v. Michel, 446 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Jamison, 635 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Gergen, 172 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2007). The Eighth and Eleventh Circuits, on the other hand, make no such requirement. United States v. White, 915 F.3d 1195 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Miller, 255 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001). ii