Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2177457, member: 28107&quot;]The stuff you posted applies to mere possession.&nbsp; I think that issue is well settled and pretty much black letter law.&nbsp; 18 U.S.C. 485 requires fraudulent intent for mere possession, 18 U.S.C. 489 prohibits possession basically with the intent to distribute, and 18 U.S.C. 492 makes it a criminal offense to not fork over the piece if asked to do so by the government.&nbsp; So simple possession appears to be fine.&nbsp; With this said, the OP&#039;s question is distinguishable; he addresses distribution. </p><p><br /></p><p>With regards to distribution, the HPA would abrogate the criminal statutes insofar as HPA compliant pieces are concerned.&nbsp; For pieces which do not strictly comply with the HPA, but where good faith attempts to comply with the statutory regime are attempted, I do not think that the statutes could be legally applied.&nbsp; First, there is a rule of criminal statutory construction that says insofar as an ambiguity were to arise, the Rule of Lenity requires the court to adopt the interpretation most favorable to the defendant.&nbsp; Second, while it is often repeated in case law that ignorance of the law is no excuse, there are in fact exceptions.&nbsp;&nbsp; The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (as applied to the states) requires a criminal statute to be sufficiently explicit to put the defendant on notice that the conduct was prohibited.&nbsp; Sometimes courts will call this void for vagueness, but it really is a due process decision invalidating the statute unconstitutional <i>as applied</i> to that particular defendant.&nbsp; It has its roots in <u>Connally v. General Construction Company</u>, 269 U.S. 385 (1926).&nbsp; This case requires that the statute reasonably apprise a criminal defendant of the prohibited acts and must not be &quot;so vague the men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at is meaning and differ as to its applications.&quot;&nbsp; <u>Id.</u> at 391.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edited:&nbsp; An OP, nothing in my post should be construed as legal advice.&nbsp; It is not.&nbsp; My comments are meant for an academic discussion of the underlying legal questions.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in