Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 356.0

524US2

Unit: $U88

[09-06-00 16:44:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 308 (1998)

311

Opinion of the Court

brandished the riﬂe in his face, and pointed it at his wife, his
daughters, and his 3-year-old grandson. Police ofﬁcers dis-
armed and arrested petitioner.

In September 1993, a federal agent called on petitioner at
home to determine if he had other unlawful ﬁrearms. Peti-
tioner said he had only ﬂintlock or other antique weapons
(not forbidden by law) and owned no conventional ﬁre-
arms. Federal law, the agent told him, forbade his posses-
In
sion of ﬁrearms and was not superseded by state law.
December 1993, agents executed a search warrant at peti-
tioner’s house, seizing six riﬂes and shotguns and 6,823
rounds of ammunition.

A federal jury convicted petitioner of four counts of pos-
sessing a ﬁrearm or ammunition after having been convicted
of a serious offense. See 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). The Dis-
trict Court enhanced his sentence because he was at least a
three-time violent felon, based on his one California and
three Massachusetts convictions. See § 924(e). Petitioner
claimed the court should not have counted his Massachusetts
convictions because his civil rights had been restored by op-
eration of Massachusetts law. Massachusetts law allowed
petitioner to possess riﬂes or shotguns, as he had the neces-
sary ﬁrearm permit and his felony convictions were more
than ﬁve years old. Mass. Gen. Laws §§ 140:123, 140:129B,
140:129C (1996). The law forbade him to possess hand-
guns outside his home or business. See §§ 140:121, 140:131,
269:10.

At ﬁrst, the District Court rejected the claim that Mas-
sachusetts had restored petitioner’s civil rights.
It held
civil rights had to be restored by an offender-speciﬁc ac-
tion rather than by operation of law. The First Circuit
disagreed, vacating the sentence and remanding the case.
United States v. Caron, 77 F. 3d 1, 2, 6 (1996) (en banc). We
denied certiorari.
518 U. S. 1027 (1996). On remand, the
District Court, interpreting the unless clause of the fed-
eral statute, disregarded the Massachusetts convictions.