401 U.S. 601, 91 S. Ct. 1112, 28 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1971)
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. United States, Congress revised the National Firearms Act.1 The revised statute covers all possessors of firearms as defined in the Act, including destructive devices such as grenades, except for the federal government itself.2 Only those who lawfully make, manufacture, or import firearms register them; a transferee does not and cannot register the firearm.3
Under the amended provisions, a lawful transfer requires the transferor to submit an application identifying the firearm and the transferee, pay the transfer tax, and affix a stamp.4 The application must include the transferee's photograph and fingerprints plus a certificate from a local or federal law enforcement official confirming the identity of the transferee and that the weapon is intended for lawful use.5 It is unlawful for any person to receive or possess a firearm not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.6 Information or evidence obtained from registration or transfer applications cannot be used directly or indirectly as evidence against the registrant in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing.7
As a matter of administrative practice, the Internal Revenue Service does not disclose registration information to state or other federal law enforcement authorities except as necessary to investigate or prosecute violations of the Act itself.8 Appellees were indicted for conspiring to possess destructive devices and for possessing hand grenades that were not registered to them.9
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the amended Act violated the Self-Incrimination Clause and that the charges failed to allege scienter.10 The United States took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.11
Whether the amended National Firearms Act violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment?12
The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause is not violated when a statutory scheme imposes registration duties on the transferor rather than the transferee, supplies immunity against use of the information in proceedings concerning prior or concurrent offenses, and features an administrative practice of nondisclosure to other law-enforcement agencies.13
No. Under the amended Act only the transferor registers the firearm by submitting an application that includes the transferee's photograph and fingerprints together with a law-enforcement certificate.14 The transferee neither registers nor can register the firearm.15 The statutory bar prevents use of the information in any criminal proceeding respecting a violation occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing.16 Internal Revenue Service practice withholds the data from state and other federal authorities except for enforcement of the Act itself.17
This eliminates any substantial hazard of incrimination for the appellees who were indicted for conspiring to possess and for possessing unregistered hand grenades.18
The amended National Firearms Act does not violate the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan concurs in Part I of the Court's opinion.20 He agrees that the amendments do not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.21 Brennan grounds his conclusion in the Act's immunity provision under 26 U.S.C. § 5848.22
That provision prevents a State from making any use of federal registration or its fruits in a prosecution under state possession law.23 Because possession is a continuing violation, the bar covers any state prosecution for possession after the filing date.24 This supplies immunity coextensive with the privilege for the class of activities relating to firearm possession.25
Whether an indictment charging receipt or possession of an unregistered firearm must allege scienter as to the unregistered status of the firearm?26
No. The Act makes it unlawful for any person to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him.29 Prior lower-court decisions incorporated into the statute required only knowledge that the instrument possessed was a firearm.30 The offense belongs to the regulatory category illustrated by United States v. Dotterweich and United States v. Balint.31 It is not like Lambert v. California or Morissette v. United States.32
Possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act.33 The measure addresses activities affecting public safety.34
An indictment charging receipt or possession of an unregistered firearm need not allege scienter as to the unregistered status of the firearm.35
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan reaches the same result on the scienter issue by a different route.36 He analyzes mens rea element by element.37 While the government must prove knowing possession and knowledge that the items are hand grenades, no intent need be shown concerning the unregistered status of the grenades.38
Prior case law under the predecessor statute dispensed with that requirement.39 The weapons covered are of a type whose distribution is so likely to be regulated that awareness of registration duties may be presumed.40