California Penal Code Section 468 regulates “sniperscopes,” devices that enhance the nighttime functionality of firearms, posing a significant risk in criminal activities due to their ability to facilitate precise targeting in low-light conditions. This statute criminalizes the unauthorized possession, sale, or transfer of “sniperscopes,” reflecting California’s broader efforts to control dangerous firearm accessories that could be used in crimes such as nighttime burglaries or assaults. This article examines the provisions of Section 468, the full definition of a “sniperscope,” its legal implications, and its application through related legal documents and cases, none of which directly interpret Section 468 but provide context for its regulatory framework. The analysis focuses on the statute’s prohibition and enforcement.
Penal Code Section 468 provides:
“Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his possession a “sniperscope” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
As used in this section, “sniperscope” means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime.
This section shall not prohibit the authorized use or possession of such “sniperscope” by a member of the armed forces of the United States or by police officers, peace officers, or law enforcement officers authorized by the properly constituted authorities for the enforcement of law or ordinances; nor shall this section prohibit the use or possession of such “sniperscope” when used solely for scientific research or educational purposes.
The statute establishes a misdemeanor offense for knowingly engaging in activities involving “sniperscopes,” with penalties including a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. The definition of a “sniperscope” includes three specific elements:
These elements ensure that the statute targets devices with advanced technological capabilities that enhance firearm precision in low-light environments, posing a heightened risk for criminal misuse. The statute’s focus on “knowingly” requires prosecutors to prove the defendant was aware the device met these definitional criteria, ensuring intentional violations are penalized.
Only four cases were located citing this section. For the purposes of this article, I will focus on only two cases, as the omitted cases provide little guidance.
Citation: 92 Cal.App.4th 768, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 209
Summary: In this published case, Maurice Valenzuela was convicted of possessing a motor vehicle master key with intent to commit an unlawful act under Penal Code Section 466.5(b). He argued that knowledge of the key’s nature as a master key was a required element of the crime. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Section 466.5(b) requires only specific intent to use the key unlawfully, not knowledge of its nature. The court contrasted this with Section 468, noting that Section 468 explicitly requires knowledge that the device is a “sniperscope,” as defined by its three elements.
Relevance to Section 468: The Valenzuela case directly references Section 468 to highlight its distinct mens rea requirement. Section 468’s use of “knowingly” mandates that prosecutors prove the defendant was aware the device met the statutory definition of a “sniperscope,” including its design or adaptability for firearm use, infrared light source, and electronic telescope. This comparison clarifies that Section 468 targets intentional possession of devices with specific nighttime capabilities, distinguishing it from statutes like Section 466.5 that focus on intent without requiring knowledge of the item’s nature.
Citation: Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 1998 WL 1769748
Summary: In this unpublished case, Los Angeles police officer Martin Whitfield, injured during a bank robbery shootout involving illegally modified automatic weapons, sued the estates of the deceased robbers and Heckler & Koch, the manufacturer of one of the rifles. Whitfield alleged ultrahazardous products liability, strict liability for defective design, negligent design, and negligent marketing. The court sustained Heckler & Koch’s demurrer without leave to amend, citing the firefighter’s rule, which bars public safety officers from recovering damages for injuries sustained in the line of duty. The court also rejected the ultrahazardous products liability theory, noting that California law does not recognize firearms as inherently defective and that proximate cause lies with the criminal user, not the manufacturer.
Relevance to Section 468: This case references Section 468 among other Penal Code sections regulating firearm-related items, such as assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition, to illustrate California’s extensive firearm regulatory framework. The court’s mention of Section 468 underscores its role in prohibiting possession of specific accessories like “sniperscopes” that enhance firearm capabilities. The case also highlights that liability for crimes committed with “sniperscopes” in violation of Section 468 rests with individuals who knowingly possess or transfer “sniperscopes,” not manufacturers producing legal devices.
Penal Code Section 468 applies to scenarios where individuals knowingly possess, buy, sell, receive, dispose of, or conceal a “sniperscope,” as defined by its three elements: an attachment or device for firearm use, a projected infrared light source, and an electronic telescope for nighttime visibility. The statute’s focus on “knowingly” requires prosecutors to prove the defendant was aware the device met these criteria, ensuring that only intentional violations are penalized. This is critical in cases where a device’s purpose or capabilities might not be immediately apparent, protecting individuals from prosecution for inadvertent possession.
The absence of direct case law interpreting Section 468 suggests it is either infrequently prosecuted or uncontroversial, likely due to the niche nature of “sniperscopes.” However, the Valenzuela case’s reference to Section 468 clarifies its stringent mens rea requirement, ensuring that only those who knowingly possess devices meeting the statutory definition face penalties.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.