final contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in excluding evidence indicating that Wallace did not intend to conceal the stun gun as he boarded the plane. Wallace claims that he sought to introduce evidence at trial that he boarded a plane the day before the arrest with a stun gun and that the security officers inspected the gun and allowed him to board with it. Accordingly, Wallace reasons that he could not have been attempting to conceal the stun gun on the day he was arrested, because he had no reaso raised on appeal, Wallace’s good faith belief that it was not illegal to carry a stun gun onto the aircraft is not an adequate ground for reversal. See United States v. Flum, 518 F.2d 39, 45 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 454, 46 L.Ed.2d 390 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The Government presented a submissible case
holding that knowledge of prohibited activities is not necessarily the same as fraudulent intent and that the code does not allow attribution of intent from spouse to spouse holding that it is not holding that it is the fact of concealment and not the intent to conceal that is prohibited under 49 usc  1472f holding that concealment is just one factor to consider and is not a mandatory element holding it is a question of fact