announced the decision of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join.

We granted certiorari, 520 U. S. 1239 (1997), to decide whether a district court’s failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense is harmless error where, at trial, the defendant admitted that element. Because we have concluded that the question is not fairly presented by the record, we dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

*254J — 4

Petitioner was charged with the knowing possession of an unregistered and unserialized firearm described as “a 9" by 1SA" silencer,” App. 6-7, in violation of 26 U. S. C. §§ 5861(d) and (i).1 Although he claimed that he did not know that the item was in a canvas bag found behind the driver’s seat in his pickup truck when he was arrested, he candidly acknowledged that he knew it was a silencer. He repeated this admission during questioning by the police and in his testimony at trial; moreover, it was confirmed by his lawyer during argument to the jury.

Under our decision in Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), the mens rea element of a violation of § 5861(d) requires the Government to prove that the defendant knew that the item he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a firearm.2 It *255is not, however, necessary to prove that the defendant knew that his possession was unlawful, or that the firearm was unregistered. United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601 (1971); see Staples, 511 U. S., at 609. Thus, in this case, petitioner’s admission that he knew the item was a silencer constituted evidence sufficient to satisfy the mens rea element of the charged offenses. He nevertheless submits that his conviction is unconstitutional because, without an instruction from the trial judge defining that element of the offense, there has been no finding by the jury that each of the elements of the offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Relying on Justice Scalia’s opinion concurring in the judgment in Carella v. California, 491 U. S. 263, 267 (1989) (per curiam), petitioner contends that “‘“the question is not whether guilt may be spelt out of a record, but whether guilt has been found by a jury according to the procedure and standards appropriate for criminal trials.” ’ ” Brief for Petitioner 20-21 (quoting Carella, 491 U. S., at 269 (in turn quoting Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U. S. 607, 614 (1946))).

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected petitioner’s argument and affirmed his conviction. 94 F. 3d 1519 (1996). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the failure to give an instruction on an element of the offense can be harmless error if the “omission related to an element of the crime that.the defendant in any ease admitted,”3 and that in this ease petitioner’s unequivocal and repeated admissions made it clear that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of the fact that petitioner’s submission relies on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment *256and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as interpreted in cases like In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), and Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993), it is clear that the Court of Appeals decided an important constitutional question. Given our tradition of avoiding the unnecessary or premature adjudication of such questions, see, e. g., New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S. 568, 582-583 (1979), we first consider whether the trial judge failed to give the jury an adequate instruction on the mens rea element of the offense.

II

Count 2 of the indictment chai’ged that petitioner “knowingly” possessed an unregistered firearm, and Count 3 charged that he “knowingly” possessed a firearm that was not properly identified by a serial number. The trial judge denied petitioner’s request for an instruction that defined the Government’s burden of establishing “ ‘knowing possession’ ” as proof that “the defendant willfully and consciously possessed items which he knew to be ‘firearms.’” App. 12. Apparently assuming that our holding in Staples required such an instruction, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge’s denial “effectively omitted from the instructions an essential element of the crime charged under § 5861(d).” 94 R 3d, at 1524. For two reasons, we believe this assumption was unwarranted.

First, the tendered instruction was ambiguous. It might have been interpreted to require proof that the defendant knew that his silencer was a “firearm” as defined by the federal statute, not merely that the item possessed certain offending characteristics. Second, and of greater importance, a fair reading of the instructions as actually given did require the jury to find that petitioner knew that he possessed a silencer.

In his objections to the instruction that the trial judge originally proposed as a definition of the § 5861(d) offense *257charged in Count 2, petitioner complained of “a third essential element in there, that being knowledge or knowing.” App. 78. In response, the trial judge inserted the word “knowingly” between the words “Defendant” and “possessed” in the instruction defining the necessary mens rea.4 In instructing the jury, the judge first explained that the statute defined the term “firearm” to include a silencer. He then instructed the jury that the defendant could not be found guilty without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that “the Defendant knowingly possessed a ‘firearm,’ as defined above.” Id., at 104. Since the term “firearm” had been “defined above” to include a silencer, that instruction required the jury to determine that the defendant knew that the item he possessed was a silencer.5 A comparable instruction was given on Count 3.6

*258Petitioner also has called our attention to the instruction which told the jury that it was not necessary for the Government to prove that petitioner knew that the item “was a ‘firearm’ which the law requires to be registered.” Ibid. Given the fact that the jurors had previously been told that a conviction requires that they find that petitioner knew the item was a silencer, this instruction is best read as merely explaining that a conviction did not require the jury to find that the defendant knew that the law required registration of the silencer. Under our decision in Freed, the Government was entitled to such an instruction.

We assume that the trial judge would have been more explicit in explaining the mens rea element of these offenses if Staples had been decided prior to submitting the case to the jury. However, in this case, we are satisfied that the instructions as given did inform the jurors that they must find that the defendant knew that the silencer was in fact a si-*259leneer.7 We therefore conclude that the record does not fairly present the question that we granted certiorari to address. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

concurring in the result.

As the plurality points out, we granted certiorari to address an important issue of constitutional law, and we ought not to decide the question if it has not been cleanly presented. In my view, it is sufficient to dismiss the writ that the instructions tendered by the District Court were ambiguous on whether the jury was asked to find, as is required by Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), that petitioner “knew that the item he possessed was a silencer,” ante, at 257. As a result, it is at least unclear whether the question we intended to address in this ease — whether a district court’s failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense is harmless error where, at trial, the defendant admitted that element — is squarely presented. For that reason, I concur in the dismissal of the writ as improvidently granted. I share the plurality’s concern, ante this page, n. 7, that trial courts should structure their instructions in eases implicating Staples in a way that prevents the possible interpretation identified by Justice Kennedy in his dissent.

dissenting.

The case was submitted to a jury prior to our decision in Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), and there was a colloquy between defense counsel and the trial court about whether the Government was required to show the defendant knew the object was a silencer. See, e.g., App. 84-87. A fair reading of the record indicates that, consistent with then-governing Eleventh Circuit precedent, see 94 F. 3d 1519, 1523, n. 7 (1996), the trial court ruled this knowledge was not a necessary part of the Government’s case.

Under the trial court’s be found guilty if he “knowingly possessed a ‘firearm,’ as defined above.” App. 104. The word “knowingly” in the instruction modifies the word which follows it, viz., “possessed,” rather than the instruction’s further reference to the statutory definition of “firearm.” Although in other circumstances one might argue the instruction was ambiguous, here the trial court agreed with the defendant’s understanding of it. The trial court explained to the jury: “What must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Defendant knowingly possessed the item as charged, that such item was a ‘firearm’ as defined above, and that [it] was not then registered to the Defendant in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.” Ibid. As understood by the trial court, ibid., petitioner’s counsel, Brief for Petitioner 2, the Solicitor General, Brief for United States 12, and the Court of Appeals, 94 F. 3d, at 1523, the instruction told the jury it had to find the defendant knew he possessed the device in question but not that he knew it was a silencer.

The plurality proceeds, instruction was ambiguous, but that it was a satisfactory implementation of our later announced decision in Staples. And, though the Court in the end does nothing more than order the ease dismissed, the plurality by its extensive discussion suggests, in effect, that all convictions based on this *261form of instruction must be affirmed. This is a substantive point; it was neither briefed nor argued; it is contrary to a commonsense reading of the instruction; and it tends to diminish the force of Staples itself.

If the plurality wishes to persist in its interpretation of the instruction, it ought to issue a full opinion addressing the merits of the conviction, rather than mask a substantive determination in its opinion supporting dismissal. As things stand, it brings little credit to us to get rid of the ease by a strained and novel reading of the instruction — a reading quite unsupportable on the record — after we granted certio-rari and expended the Court’s resources to determine a different and important issue of substantive criminal law. The petitioner, whose conviction now stands based on what is for practical purposes an affirmance on a theory no one has suggested until now, will be hard put to understand the plurality’s cavalier refusal to address his substantive arguments.

I dissent from the order dismissing the case.