How has the federal court interpreted the law on possession of a destructive device?

17 In United States v. Freed, supra, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, the court upheld conviction under a regulatory statute which did not require scienter and did carry a substantial term of imprisonment (10 years). The law regulated transfer, registration, and taxation of "firearms" which the law defined to include destructive devices and hand grenades. The defendant possessed the latter in violation of the law. The court reversed a district court order dismissing the indictment for failure to allege scienter, holding that the law was "a regulatory measure in the interest of the public safety, which may well be premised on the theory that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act." (401 U.S. at p. 609, 91 S.Ct. at p. 1118, fn. omitted.)

In Staples v. United States, supra, 511 U.S. 600, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 1802, however, the court refused to extend Freed, again emphasizing that felony offenses which bear harsh punishment are not the type of "public welfare" offenses in which the court will readily dispense with a mens rea requirement when construing a statute. (511 U.S. at p. ----, 114 S.Ct. at p. ----.)