Staples v. United States Case Brief

Why is the case important?

Defendant Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act, which criminalizes the possession of a weapon that is capable of automatically firing. Defendant argued that he did not know that the gun would fire automatically.

Facts of the case


Did the Court err in dismissing with the intent requirement based on congressional silence in the statute with regard to the element of intent?


Yes. Judgment reversed.
Absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not a required element of an offense, the Court should not dismiss with such requirement. Instead the Court should construe the statute in light of the rules embodied in the common law which require some mens rea as an element of an offense.


The court reversed and remanded. It held that to obtain a conviction under the Act, the government was required to prove that petitioner knew of the features of his weapon that brought it within the scope of the Act. The court noted that the silence as to the mens rea requirement in § 5861(d) did not suggest a congressional intent that such requirement be eliminated. The court noted that the potentially harsh penalty attached to a violation of § 5861(d) provided further support for the proposition that a mens rea requirement existed.

  • Case Brief: 1994
  • Petitioner: Staples
  • Respondent: United States
  • Decided by: Rehnquist Court

Citation: 511 US 600 (1994)
Argued: Nov 30, 1993
Decided: May 23, 1994