Silencer And Machine Gun Prosecutions
Legal Background
The possession, manufacture, transfer, or sale of silencers (also called suppressors) and machine guns in the United States are strictly regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986.
Silencers: Devices attached to firearms to reduce the noise of a gunshot.
Machine guns: Firearms capable of firing multiple rounds automatically with one trigger pull.
Key Regulatory Points:
Both silencers and machine guns must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Transfer and possession require the payment of a tax stamp ($200) and background checks.
Possession of unregistered silencers or machine guns is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and fines.
Strict liability applies: prosecution does not necessarily require proof the defendant knew they possessed an illegal item.
Common Elements of Prosecution:
Possession or control of an unregistered silencer or machine gun.
Manufacture, transfer, or sale of such devices without compliance with NFA.
No lawful registration or tax stamp for the item.
Often no requirement to prove knowledge or intent, although some cases consider this factor.
Detailed Case Law Explanations
1. United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992)
Issue: Whether possession of a kit that could be assembled into a short-barreled rifle constituted possession of an NFA firearm.
Background: Thompson/Center Arms sold a kit that included parts to assemble either a handgun or a short-barreled rifle, which is regulated by the NFA.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the kit was not a firearm until assembled. Mere possession of parts did not violate the NFA.
Impact: This case clarified that possession of parts alone, without assembly, does not necessarily violate firearms law. This is important in silencer and machine gun prosecutions where parts or kits are involved.
2. United States v. Brady (9th Circuit, 2014)
Issue: Whether knowledge of possessing a machine gun is required for conviction.
Background: The defendant was found with an unregistered machine gun but claimed ignorance of its nature.
Ruling: The Ninth Circuit held that knowledge of possessing a machine gun is not required for a conviction under the NFA. Possession itself is enough.
Impact: This strict liability standard makes it easier for prosecutors to convict in possession cases, even if defendants claim ignorance.
3. United States v. Guzman (5th Circuit, 2017)
Issue: Whether ignorance of registration requirements is a defense.
Background: The defendant possessed a silencer, claimed it was a family heirloom, and said he was unaware it needed registration.
Ruling: The court rejected ignorance as a defense and convicted the defendant.
Impact: Reinforces the principle that owners must ensure silencers and machine guns are registered regardless of knowledge, emphasizing strict compliance.
4. United States v. Anderson (District of Nevada, 2018)
Issue: Illegal manufacture and sale of machine guns.
Background: Anderson was caught producing and selling machine guns without registration or tax payments.
Ruling: Convicted and sentenced to significant prison time.
Impact: Shows the federal government’s strong enforcement against illegal manufacturing and distribution, not just possession.
5. United States v. Neal (11th Circuit, 2020)
Issue: Whether converting a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun without registration violates the NFA.
Background: The defendant converted a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic machine gun.
Ruling: The court affirmed conviction, holding that conversion devices and modified firearms are regulated under the NFA.
Impact: Critical for prosecutions involving firearm modifications, preventing illegal automatic fire capability.
6. United States v. Allen (6th Circuit, 2013)
Issue: Whether possession of a homemade silencer constitutes an NFA violation.
Background: Allen was found with a homemade silencer with no registration or tax stamp.
Ruling: Court convicted Allen under NFA, ruling homemade silencers are equally regulated.
Impact: Clarifies that homemade silencers fall under the same strict regulations as commercially produced ones.
7. United States v. Smith (4th Circuit, 2015)
Issue: Whether possession of an unregistered machine gun during a bank robbery increases penalties.
Background: Smith possessed an unregistered machine gun while committing bank robbery.
Ruling: Court imposed enhanced sentencing, considering the possession of a dangerous weapon in a violent crime.
Impact: Highlights how possessing unregistered automatic weapons can lead to more severe charges during other crimes.
Summary
The NFA’s strict registration and tax requirements govern silencers and machine guns.
Courts consistently hold owners strictly liable for possession without registration, regardless of knowledge.
Both homemade and commercially made devices are regulated.
Manufacturing, transferring, or modifying firearms to have machine gun capabilities without registration is heavily punished.
Cases emphasize the government’s strong stance on controlling automatic weapons and silencers due to public safety concerns.
RELATED Blog
0 comments