Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

2 

BOND v. UNITED STATES 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

constitutional. 

I would hold that it was not, and for that reason would 
reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. 

I.  The Statutory Question
A.  Unavoidable Meaning of the Text 
The meaning of the Act is plain.  No person may know-
ingly “develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly
or  indirectly,  receive,  stockpile,  retain,  own,  possess,  or 
use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”  18 U. S. C. 
§229(a)(1).  A “chemical weapon” is “[a] toxic chemical and 
its  precursors,  except  where  intended  for  a  purpose  not
prohibited  under  this  chapter  as  long  as  the  type  and 
quantity is consistent with such a purpose.”  §229F(1)(A).
A  “toxic  chemical”  is  “any  chemical  which  through  its
chemical  action  on  life  processes  can  cause  death,  tempo-
rary  incapacitation  or  permanent  harm  to  humans  or 
animals.  The term includes all such chemicals, regardless
of  their  origin  or  of  their  method  of  production,  and  re-
gardless  of  whether  they  are  produced  in  facilities,  in
munitions  or  elsewhere.”    §229F(8)(A).    A  “purpose  not
prohibited” is “[a]ny peaceful purpose related to an indus-
trial,  agricultural,  research,  medical,  or  pharmaceutical
activity or other activity.”  §229F(7)(A).

Applying  those  provisions  to  this  case  is hardly  compli-
cated.  Bond  possessed  and  used  “chemical[s]  which
through [their] chemical action on life processes can cause 
death,  temporary  incapacitation  or  permanent  harm.”
Thus, she possessed “toxic chemicals.”  And, because they
were not possessed or used only for a “purpose not prohib-
ited,”  §229F(1)(A),  they  were  “chemical  weapons.”    Ergo,
Bond violated the Act.  End of statutory analysis, I would