Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 193

524US1

Unit: $U79

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

148

MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

those statutes, in light of their purposes and of common
sense.” McFadden, 13 F. 3d, at 467 (Breyer, C. J., dissent-
ing). So reading the “Firearms” statutes, I would not ex-
tend the word “carries” in § 924(c)(1) to mean transports out
of hand’s reach in a vehicle.12

II

Section 924(c)(1), as the foregoing discussion details, is not
decisively clear one way or another. The sharp division in
the Court on the proper reading of the measure conﬁrms,
“[a]t the very least, . . . that the issue is subject to some
doubt. Under these circumstances, we adhere to the famil-
iar rule that, ‘where there is ambiguity in a criminal statute,
doubts are resolved in favor of the defendant.’ ” Adamo
Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U. S. 275, 284–285 (1978)
(citation omitted); see United States v. Granderson, 511 U. S.
39, 54 (1994) (“[W]here text, structure, and history fail to
establish that the Government’s position is unambiguously
correct—we apply the rule of lenity and resolve the ambigu-
“Carry” bears many mean-
ity in [the defendant’s] favor.”).

12 The Court places undue reliance on Representative Poff ’s statement
that § 924(c)(1) seeks “ ‘to persuade the man who is tempted to commit a
Federal felony to leave his gun at home.’ ” Ante, at 132 (quoting 114
Cong. Rec. 22231 (1968)). As the Government argued in its brief to this
Court in Bailey:
“In making that statement, Representative Poff was not referring to the
‘carries’ prong of the original Section 924(c). As originally enacted, the
‘carries’ prong of the statute prohibited only the ‘unlawful’ carrying of a
ﬁrearm while committing an offense. The statute would thus not have
applied to an individual who, for instance, had a permit for carrying a gun
and carried it with him when committing an offense, and it would have
had no force in ‘persuading’ such an individual ‘to leave his gun at home.’
Instead, Representative Poff was referring to the ‘uses’ prong of the origi-
nal Section 924(c).” Brief for United States in Bailey v. United States,
O. T. 1995, Nos. 94–7448 and 94–7492, p. 28.
Representative Poff ’s next sentence conﬁrms that he was speaking of
“uses,” not “carries”: “Any person should understand that if he uses his
114 Cong. Rec., at
gun and is caught and convicted, he is going to jail.”
22231 (emphasis added).