Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 353.0

524US2

Unit: $U88

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

308

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

CARON v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the first circuit

No. 97–6270. Argued April 21, 1998—Decided June 22, 1998

Federal law forbids a person convicted of a serious offense to possess any
ﬁrearm, 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1), and requires that a three-time violent
felon who violates § 922(g) receive an enhanced sentence, § 924(e).
However, a previous conviction is not a predicate for the substantive
offense or the enhanced sentence if the offender’s civil rights have been
restored, “unless such . . . restoration . . . expressly provides that the
person may not . . . possess . . . ﬁrearms.”
§ 921(a)(20). Petitioner,
who has an extensive criminal record, was convicted of possessing, inter
alia, six riﬂes and shotguns in violation of § 922(g). The District Court
enhanced his sentence based on one California conviction and three
Massachusetts convictions, but the First Circuit vacated the sentence,
concluding that his civil rights had been restored by operation of a
Massachusetts law that permitted him to possess riﬂes but restricted
his right to carry handguns. On remand, the District Court disre-
garded the Massachusetts convictions, ﬁnding that, because Massachu-
setts law allowed petitioner to possess riﬂes, § 921(a)(20)’s “unless
clause” was not activated, and that the handgun restriction was irrele-
vant because the case involved riﬂes and shotguns. The First Circuit
reversed, counting the convictions because petitioner remained subject
to signiﬁcant ﬁrearms restrictions.

Held: The handgun restriction activates the unless clause, making the
Massachusetts convictions count under federal law. The phrase “may
not . . . possess . . . ﬁrearms” must be interpreted under either of two
“all-or-nothing” approaches: either it applies when the State forbids one
or more types of ﬁrearms, as the Government contends; or it does not
apply if the State permits one or more types of ﬁrearms, regardless
of the one possessed in the particular case. This Court agrees with
the Government’s approach, under which a state weapons limitation
activates the uniform federal ban on possessing any ﬁrearms at all.
Even if a State permitted an offender to have the guns he possessed,
federal law uses the State’s determination that the offender is more
dangerous than law-abiding citizens to impose its own broader stric-
ture. Under petitioner’s approach, if he had possessed a handgun in
violation of state law, the unless clause would not apply because he could
have possessed a riﬂe. This approach contradicts a likely, and rational,