AND · 18usc922:knowledge-status
Rehaif expressly reserved the precise proof needed for statuses other than the one before it; do not infer that awareness of every legal consequence or the federal firearms ban is required. Status knowledge must coincide with the relevant conduct.
Exact element source
(g) It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec922; Unicode character offsets [16129:16168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 69d6082896652ca704d8da56c0a01daa1d10b51846206764bf1140610c756b65.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Rogers — 41 F.3d 25 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Rogers — 41 F.3d 25 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) Pre-Rehaif (1994); not an element the court recognised or discussed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 — not reached (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural party: Kenneth Thompson; count: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); subject: party=Kenneth Thompson; count=18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) The court decides only that the defendant was TOLD of the knowledge-of-status element (Rule 11(b)(1)(G)), not that he knew his status; the conviction rests on the guilty plea. The opinion approves the magistrate judge's statement of the element. | plea colloquy that recited the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element; plea held knowing, so the appeal waiver is enforced | The magistrate judge explicitly stated to Thompson at his plea hearing that in addition to proving that he “knowingly possessed the firearm and ammunition as charged in the indictment,” “the government would [also] have to prove that [Thompson was] convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and that [he] knew [he] had been convicted of such a crime.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/169; Unicode character offsets [40794:41194] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eae341592a474d3e3934da53386f5dc41d81c8bea633cb72b7053894e83445bb.We find that the district court met its obligations under Rule 11 and sufficiently informed Thompson of the elements of his crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/169; Unicode character offsets [40663:40793] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eae341592a474d3e3934da53386f5dc41d81c8bea633cb72b7053894e83445bb. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The magistrate judge explicitly stated to Thompson at his plea hearing that in addition to proving that he “knowingly possessed the firearm and ammunition as charged in the indictment,” “the government would [also] have to prove that [Thompson was] convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and that [he] knew [he] had been convicted of such a crime.”
United States v. Thompson — 143 F.4th 169 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
The magistrate judge explicitly stated to Thompson at his plea hearing that in addition to proving that he “knowingly possessed the firearm and ammunition as charged in the indictment,” “the government would [also] have to prove that [Thompson was] convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and that [he] knew [he] had been convicted of such a crime.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_143.jsonl#/f4th/143/169; Unicode character offsets [40794:41194] (end exclusive); SHA-256 eae341592a474d3e3934da53386f5dc41d81c8bea633cb72b7053894e83445bb.Rehaif expressly reserved the precise proof needed for statuses other than the one before it; do not infer that awareness of every legal consequence or the federal firearms ban is required. Status knowledge must coincide with the relevant conduct.