126
Opinion of the Court
arms" section of the United States Code; that it would be anomalous to construe "carry" broadly when the related phrase "uses . . . a firearm," 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1), has been construed narrowly to include only the "active employment" of a firearm, Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 144; that this Court's reading of the statute would extend its coverage to passengers on buses, trains, or ships, who have placed a firearm, say, in checked luggage; and that the "rule of lenity" should apply because of statutory ambiguity—are unconvincing. Pp. 134-139.
No. 96-1654, 106 F. 3d 636, and No. 96-8837, 106 F. 3d 1056, affirmed.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, OTMConnor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ., joined, post, p. 139.
Robert H. Klonoff argued the cause for petitioner in No. 96-1654. With him on the briefs were Gregory A. Castanias, Paul R. Reichert, and Ron S. Macaluso. Norman S. Zalkind, by appointment of the Court, 522 U. S. 1074, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 96-8837. With him on the briefs were Elizabeth A. Lunt, David Duncan, and John H. Cunha, Jr., by appointment of the Court, 522 U. S. 1074. James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States in both cases. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.†
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
A provision in the firearms chapter of the federal criminal code imposes a 5-year mandatory prison term upon a person who "uses or carries a firearm" "during and in relation to" a "drug trafficking crime." 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). The question before us is whether the phrase "carries a firearm" is limited to the carrying of firearms on the person. We hold that it is not so limited. Rather, it also applies to a person
†Daniel Kanstroom, David Porter, and Kyle O'Dowd filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007