Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 190.0

524US1

Unit: $U79

[09-08-00 13:44:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 125 (1998)

145

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

leaving other,

ous cases—the gun at hand, ready for use as a weapon.7
It
is reasonable to comprehend Congress as having provided
mandatory minimums for the most life-jeopardizing gun-
connection cases (guns in or at the defendant’s hand when
committing an offense),
less imminently
threatening, situations for the more ﬂexible Guidelines re-
gime.8 As the Ninth Circuit suggested, it is not apparent
why possession of a gun in a drug dealer’s moving vehicle
would be thought more dangerous than gun possession on
premises where drugs are sold: “A drug dealer who packs
heat is more likely to hurt someone or provoke someone else
to violence. A gun in a bag under a tarp in a truck bed [or
in a bedroom closet] poses substantially less risk.” United
States v. Foster, 133 F. 3d 704, 707 (1998) (en banc).9

For indicators from Congress itself, it is appropriate to
consider word usage in other provisions of Title 18’s chapter
on “Firearms.” See Bailey, 516 U. S., at 143, 146 (interpret-
ing § 924(c)(1) in light of 18 U. S. C. §§ 922(g), 922( j), 922(k),
922(o)(1), 924(d)(1), 930(a), 930(b)). The Court, however,

7 In my view, the Government would carry its burden by proving a ﬁre-
arm was kept so close to the person as to approximate placement in a
pocket or holster, e. g., guns carried at one’s side in a briefcase or handbag,
or strapped to the saddle of a horse. See ante, at 130.

8 The Court reports that the Courts of Appeals “have unanimously con-
cluded that ‘carry’ is not limited to the carrying of weapons directly on the
person.” Ante, at 131.
In Bailey, however, the Government’s argument
based on a similar observation did not carry the day. See Brief for United
States in Bailey v. United States, O. T. 1995, Nos. 94–7448 and 94–7492,
p. 16, n. 4. No Court of Appeals had previously adopted an “active em-
ployment” construction of “uses . . . a ﬁrearm” in § 924(c)(1), yet this Court
did exactly that. See 516 U. S., at 144.

9 The “Firearms” statutes indicate that Congress, unlike the Court, ante,
at 132–133, recognizes that a gun in the hand is indeed more dangerous
than a gun in the trunk. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 926A (permitting the
transportation of ﬁrearms in a vehicle, but only if “neither the ﬁrearm
nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly
accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle”);
see infra, at 146–147.