Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 171

524US1

Unit: $U79

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

126

MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

arms” section of the United States Code; that it would be anomalous to
construe “carry” broadly when the related phrase “uses . . . a ﬁrearm,”
18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1), has been construed narrowly to include only the
“active employment” of a ﬁrearm, Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137,
144; that this Court’s reading of the statute would extend its coverage
to passengers on buses, trains, or ships, who have placed a ﬁrearm, say,
in checked luggage; and that the “rule of lenity” should apply because
of statutory ambiguity—are unconvincing. Pp. 134–139.

No. 96–1654, 106 F. 3d 636, and No. 96–8837, 106 F. 3d 1056, afﬁrmed.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens,
O(cid:146)Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., ﬁled a dis-
senting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ.,
joined, post, p. 139.

Robert H. Klonoff argued the cause for petitioner in
No. 96–1654. With him on the briefs were Gregory A. Cas-
tanias, Paul R. Reichert, and Ron S. Macaluso. Norman
S. Zalkind, by appointment of the Court, 522 U. S. 1074, ar-
gued the cause for petitioners in No. 96–8837. With him on
the briefs were Elizabeth A. Lunt, David Duncan, and John
H. Cunha, Jr., by appointment of the Court, 522 U. S. 1074.
James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States
in both cases. With him on the brief were Solicitor General
Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, and
Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.†

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
A provision in the ﬁrearms chapter of the federal criminal
code imposes a 5-year mandatory prison term upon a person
who “uses or carries a ﬁrearm” “during and in relation to” a
“drug trafﬁcking crime.”
18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). The ques-
tion before us is whether the phrase “carries a ﬁrearm” is
limited to the carrying of ﬁrearms on the person. We hold
that it is not so limited. Rather, it also applies to a person

†Daniel Kanstroom, David Porter, and Kyle O’Dowd ﬁled a brief for
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici
curiae urging reversal.