Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 241

524us1$82I

02-22-99 22:42:40 PAGES OPINPGT

196

BRYAN v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

Thus, the willfulness requirement of § 924(a)(1)(D) does not
carve out an exception to the traditional rule that ignorance
of the law is no excuse; knowledge that the conduct is unlaw-
ful is all that is required.

IV

Petitioner advances a number of additional arguments
based on his reading of congressional intent. Petitioner ﬁrst
points to the legislative history of FOPA, but that history
is too ambiguous to offer petitioner much assistance. Peti-
tioner’s main support lies in statements made by opponents
of the bill.24 As we have stated, however, “[t]he fears and
doubts of the opposition are no authoritative guide to the
construction of legislation.” Schwegmann Brothers v. Cal-
vert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 394 (1951).
“In their
zeal to defeat a bill, they understandably tend to overstate
its reach.” NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58, 66 (1964).25
Petitioner next argues that, at the time FOPA was passed,
the “willfulness” requirements in other subsections of
the statute—§§ 923(d)(1)(C)–(D)—had uniformly been inter-
preted by lower courts to require knowledge of the law; peti-
tioner argues that Congress intended that “willfully” should
have the same meaning in § 924(a)(1)(D). As an initial mat-
ter, the lower courts had come to no such agreement. While
some courts had stated that willfulness in § 923(d)(1) is satis-

n. 4, supra; see also United States v. Andrade, 135 F. 3d 104, 108–109
(CA1 1998).

24 For example, Representative Hughes, a staunch opponent of the bill,
stated that the willfulness requirement would “make it next to impossible
to convict dealers, particularly those who engage in business without ac-
quiring a license, because the prosecution would have to show that the
dealer was personally aware of every detail of the law, and that he made a
132 Cong. Rec. 6875 (1986). Even
conscious decision to violate the law.”
petitioner’s amicus acknowledges that this statement was “undoubtedly
an exaggeration.” Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 14.

25 See also Andrade, 135 F. 3d, at 108–109.