A probation condition prohibiting defendant from possessing deadly or dangerous weapons need not contain an express scienter requirement to afford due process, as such knowledge is implicit in the condition. As a term of his probation, defendant was prohibited from possessing dangerous or deadly weapons, including guns and knives. On appeal he contended the term was unconstitutionally vague and required modification to add a knowledge requirement. Held: Affirmed. Due process does not require modification of the term to add an express knowledge requirement, because scienter is “manifestly implied” in the condition. In contrast to other “associational, presence and possession prohibitions that are often the subject of express modifications,” there is no ambiguity regarding what defendant is prohibited from possessing – items designed as weapons and other objects which, although not designed as weapons, the bearer intends to use to inflict or threaten injury or death. Defendant’s probation cannot be violated for unknowing possession of a prohibited weapon because the evidence must show that any alleged violation was knowing and willful. Insofar as the term prohibits the defendant from possessing a prohibited weapon, it does not infringe upon his constitutional rights. The condition provided advance notice as to what was prohibited, affording due process.