Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 177.0

524US1

Unit: $U79

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

132

MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

States v. Molina, 102 F. 3d 928, 932 (CA7 1996); United
States v. Willis, 89 F. 3d 1371, 1379 (CA8 1996); United States
v. Miller, 84 F. 3d 1244, 1259–1260 (1996), overruled on other
grounds, United States v. Holland, 116 F. 3d 1353 (CA10
1997); United States v. Giraldo, 80 F. 3d 667, 676–677 (CA2
1996); United States v. Farris, 77 F. 3d 391, 395–396 (CA11
1996).

B

We now explore more deeply the purely legal question of
whether Congress intended to use the word “carry” in its
ordinary sense, or whether it intended to limit the scope of
the phrase to instances in which a gun is carried “on the
person.” We conclude that neither the statute’s basic pur-
pose nor its legislative history support circumscribing the
scope of the word “carry” by applying an “on the person”
limitation.

This Court has described the statute’s basic purpose
broadly, as an effort to combat the “dangerous combination”
of “drugs and guns.” Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223,
240 (1993). And the provision’s chief legislative sponsor has
said that the provision seeks “to persuade the man who is
tempted to commit a Federal felony to leave his gun at
home.”
114 Cong. Rec. 22231 (1968) (Rep. Poff); see Busic
v. United States, 446 U. S. 398, 405 (1980) (describing Poff ’s
comments as “crucial material” in interpreting the purpose
of § 924(c)); Simpson v. United States, 435 U. S. 6, 13–14
(1978) (concluding that Poff ’s comments are “clearly proba-
tive” and “certainly entitled to weight”); see also 114 Cong.
Rec. 22243–22244 (statutes would apply to “the man who
goes out taking a gun to commit a crime”) (Rep. Hunt); id.,
at 22244 (“Of course, what we are trying to do by these pen-
alties is to persuade the criminal to leave his gun at home”)
(Rep. Randall); id., at 22236 (“We are concerned . . . with
having the criminal leave his gun at home”) (Rep. Meskill).
From the perspective of any such purpose (persuading a
criminal “to leave his gun at home”), what sense would it