This author argues that the Court should have held that the petitioner was guilty of violating Sec. 5861 (d) because he was reckless as to the fact that his weapon was a statutory firearm. While the Court concluded that Sec. 5861 (d) requires only one mens rea, in fact, the section requires three separate and distinct mens rea, one for each objective element of Sec. 5861 (d). The required mens rea as to the physical characteristics of a weapon that make it a statutory firearm is actually lower than the mens rea established by the Court. While the author agrees with the Court's definition of what items should alert a gun owner to the possibility of strict regulation, he disagrees with how the Court applied its definition to this particular case, since the weapon had been visibly altered and visibly altered weapons have not enjoyed a tradition of legality in the U.S. 246 notes