Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 22

4 

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

crime  does  not  “involv[e]  conduct  that  presents  a  serious 
potential  risk  of  physical  injury  to  another,”  §924(e) 
(2)(B)(ii).  The  acts  that  form  the  basis  of  this  offense  are 
simply  too  remote  from  a  risk  of  physical  injury  to  fall 
within the residual clause. 

Standing alone, the elements of this offense—(1) unlaw-
fully  (2)  possessing  (3)  a  short-barreled  shotgun—do  not 
describe  inherently  dangerous  conduct.    As  a  conceptual
matter, “simple possession [of a firearm], even by a felon, 
takes place in a variety of ways (e.g., in a closet, in a store-
room, in a car, in a pocket) many, perhaps most, of which
do  not  involve  likely  accompanying  violence.”    United 
States v. Doe, 960 F. 2d 221, 225 (CA1 1992).  These weap-
ons also can be stored in a manner posing a danger to no 
one, such as unloaded, disassembled, or locked away.   By
themselves,  the  elements  of  this  offense  indicate  that  the 
ordinary  commission  of  this  crime  is  far  less  risky  than
ACCA’s enumerated offenses. 

Reported  convictions  support  the  conclusion  that  mere
possession  of  a  short-barreled  shotgun  does  not,  in  the 
ordinary  case,  pose  a  serious  risk  of  injury  to  others.    A 
few  examples  suffice.
  In  one  case,  officers  found  the 
sawed-off shotgun locked inside a gun cabinet in an empty
home.  State v. Salyers, 858 N. W. 2d 156, 157–158 (Minn. 
2015).  In  another,  the  firearm  was  retrieved  from  the 
trunk of the defendant’s car.  State v. Ellenberger, 543 N. 
W.  2d  673,  674  (Minn.  App.  1996).  In  still  another,  the 
weapon was found missing a firing pin.  State v. Johnson, 
171 Wis. 2d 175, 178, 491 N. W. 2d 110, 111 (App. 1992). 
In  these  instances  and  others,  the  offense  threatened  no 
one. 

The  Government’s  theory  for  why  this  crime  should 
nonetheless  qualify  as  a  “violent  felony”  is  unpersuasive.
Although it does not dispute that the unlawful possession
of  a  short-barreled  shotgun  can  occur  in  a  nondangerous
manner, the Government contends that this offense poses