Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 57

20 

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

weapon is unlikely to use that weapon in violent ways. 

B 
If  we  were  to  abandon  the  categorical  approach,  the
facts of Johnson’s offense would satisfy the residual clause 
as  well.  According  to  the  record  in  this  case,  Johnson 
possessed  his  sawed-off  shotgun  while  dealing  drugs. 
When  police  responded  to  reports  of  drug  activity  in  a
parking  lot,  they  were  told  by  two  people  that  “Johnson 
and  another  individual  had  approached  them  and  offered 
to  sell  drugs.”  PSR  ¶45.    The  police  then  searched  the
vehicle  where  Johnson  was  seated  as  a  passenger,  and 
they  found  a  sawed-off  shotgun  and  five  bags  of  mari-
juana.  Johnson admitted that the gun was his.

Understood in this context, Johnson’s conduct posed an
acute  risk  of  physical  injury  to  another.    Drugs  and  guns 
are never a safe combination.  If one of his drug deals had
gone  bad  or  if  a  rival  dealer  had  arrived  on  the  scene,
Johnson’s  deadly  weapon  was  close  at  hand.  The  sawed-
off nature of the gun elevated the risk of collateral damage 
beyond  any  intended  targets.  And  the  location  of  the 
crime—a  public  parking  lot—significantly  increased  the 
chance  that  innocent  bystanders  might  be  caught  up  in 
the  carnage.    This  is  not  a  case  of  “mere  possession”  as
Johnson  suggests.    Brief  for  Petitioner  i.  He  was  not 
storing the  gun in a safe, nor was it a family heirloom or 
collector’s item.  He illegally possessed the weapon in case 
he needed to use it during another crime.  A judge or jury
could  thus  conclude  that  Johnson’s  offense  qualified  as  a 
violent felony. 

There should be no doubt that Samuel Johnson was an 
armed  career  criminal.  His  record  includes  a  number  of 
serious felonies.  And he has been caught with dangerous
weapons on numerous occasions.  That this case has led to 
the  residual  clause’s  demise  is  confounding.  I  only  hope
that  Congress  can  take  the  Court  at  its  word  that  either