Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

5 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

a  serious  risk  of  physical  injury  due  to  the  connection
between short-barreled shotguns and other serious crimes.
As the Government explains, these firearms are “weapons 
not  typically  possessed  by  law-abiding  citizens  for  lawful 
purposes,”  District  of  Columbia  v.  Heller,  554  U. S.  570, 
625  (2008),  but  are  instead  primarily  intended  for  use  in 
criminal  activity.  In  light  of  that  intended  use,  the  Gov-
ernment reasons that the ordinary case of this possession
offense will involve the use of a short-barreled shotgun in
a serious crime, a scenario obviously posing a serious risk 
of physical injury.

But  even  assuming  that  those  who  unlawfully  possess
these  weapons  typically  intend  to  use  them  in  a  serious
crime,  the  risk  that  the  Government  identifies  arises  not 
from the act of possessing the weapon, but from the act of 
using  it.  Unlike  attempted  burglary  (at  least  of  the  type 
at issue in James) or intentional vehicular flight—conduct 
that by itself often or always invites a dangerous confron-
tation—possession  of  a  short-barreled  shotgun  poses  a
threat  only  when  an  offender  decides  to  engage  in  addi-
tional,  voluntary  conduct  that  is  not  included  in  the  ele-
ments of the crime.  Until this weapon is assembled, load-
ed, or used, for example, it poses no risk of injury to others 
in  and  of  itself.    The  risk  of  injury  to  others  from  mere
possession  of  this  firearm  is  too  attenuated  to  treat  this
offense  as  a  violent  felony.    I  would  reverse  the  Court  of 
Appeals on that basis. 

II 

As  the  foregoing  analysis  demonstrates,  ACCA’s  resid- 
ual  clause  can  be  applied  in  a  principled  manner.    One 
would have thought this proposition well established given 
that  we  have  already  decided  four  cases  addressing  this 
clause.  The majority nonetheless concludes that the oper-
ation of this provision violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.