Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/336/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:37:59+00:00

Document:
Respondent was convicted of possessing firearms in violation of § 1202(a)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which provides that a person convicted of a felony "who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm . . ." shall be punished as prescribed therein. The indictment did not allege and no attempt was made to show that the firearms involved had been possessed "in commerce or affecting commerce," the Government contending that the statute does not require proof of a connection with interstate commerce in individual cases involving possession or receipt. Doubting its constitutionality if the statute were thus construed, the Court of Appeals reversed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN (except for Part III), STEWART, and WHITE, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a separate statement, post, p. 404 U. S. 351. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 404 U. S. 351.
"(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony . . . and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. [Footnote 1]"
on separate occasions a pistol and then a shotgun. There was no allegation in the indictment and no attempt by the prosecution to show that either firearm had been possessed "in commerce or affecting commerce." The Government proceeded on the assumption that § 1202(a)(1) banned all possessions and receipts of firearms by convicted felons, and that no connection with interstate commerce had to be demonstrated in individual cases.
but for substantially different reasons. [Footnote 4] We conclude that § 1202 is ambiguous in the critical respect. Because its sanctions are criminal. and because, under the Government's broader reading, the statute would mark a major inroad into a domain traditionally left to the States, we refuse to adopt the broad reading in the absence of a clearer direction from Congress.
Not wishing "to give point to the quip that only when legislative history is doubtful do you go to the statute," [Footnote 5] we begin by looking to the text itself. The critical textual question is whether the statutory phrase "in commerce or affecting commerce" applies to "possesses" and "receives" as well as to "transports." If it does, then the Government must prove, as an essential element of the offense, that a possession, receipt, or transportation was "in commerce or affecting commerce" -- a burden not undertaken in this prosecution for possession.
"to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce . . . [or] to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."
IV. Title VII was a last-minute Senate amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The Amendment was hastily passed, with little discussion, no hearings, and no report. [Footnote 11] The notion that it was enacted to dovetail neatly with Title IV rests perhaps on a conception of the model legislative process; but we cannot pretend that all statutes are model statutes. While courts should interpret a statute with an eye to the surrounding statutory landscape and an ear for harmonizing potentially discordant provisions, these guiding principles are not substitutes for congressional lawmaking. In our view, no conclusion can be drawn from Title IV concerning the correct interpretation of Title VII.
Long's remarks were crystal clear to us, they were apparently not crystal clear to his congressional colleagues. Meager as the discussion of Title VI was, one of the few Congressmen who discussed the amendment summarized Title VII as "mak[ing] it a Federal crime to take, possess, or receive a firearm across State lines. . . ." 114 Cong.Rec. 16298 (statement of Rep. Pollock).
"the legislative history of [the] Act hardly speaks with that clarity of purpose which Congress supposedly furnishes courts in order to enable them to enforce its true will."
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474, 340 U. S. 483 (151). Here, as in other cases, the various remarks by legislators "are sufficiently ambiguous insofar as this narrow issue is concerned . . . to invite mutually destructive dialectic," and not much more.
FCC v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 311 U. S. 132, 311 U. S. 136 (1940). Taken together, the statutory materials are inconclusive on the central issue of whether or not the statutory phrase "in commerce or affecting commerce" applies to "possesses" and "receives" as well as "transports." While standing alone, the legislative history might tip in the Government's favor, the respondent explains far better the presence of critical language in the statute. The Government concedes that "the statute is not a model of logic or clarity." Pet. for Cert. 5. After "seiz[ing] everything from which aid can be derived," United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805) (Marshall, C.J.), we are left with an ambiguous statute.
Given this ambiguity, we adopt the narrower reading: the phrase "in commerce or affecting commerce" is part of all three offenses, and the present conviction must be set aside because the Government has failed to show the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. This result is dictated by two wise principles this Court has long followed.
"when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite."
"a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible, the line should be clear."
a convicted felon simply to posses a gun absent some demonstrated nexus with interstate commerce.
that they are not even discussed in the legislative history . . . strongly suggests that Congress did not intend that [the statute have the broad reach]." 401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 812. In the instant case, the broad construction urged by the Government renders traditionally local criminal conduct a matter for federal enforcement, and would also involve a substantial extension of federal police resources. Absent proof of some interstate commerce nexus in each case, § 1202(a) dramatically intrudes upon traditional state criminal jurisdiction. As in Rewis, the legislative history provides scanty basis for concluding that Congress faced these serious questions and meant to affect the federal state balance in the way now claimed by the Government. Absent a clearer statement of intention from Congress than is present here, we do not interpret § 1202(a) to reach the "mere possession" of firearms.
"not mean that every criminal statute must be given the narrowest possible meaning in complete disregard of the purpose of the legislature."
United States v. Bramblett, 348 U. S. 503, 348 U. S. 510 (1955). We have resolved the basic uncertainty about the statute in favor of the narrow reading, concluding that "in commerce or affecting commerce" is part of the offense of possessing or receiving a firearm. But, given the evils that prompted the statute and the basic legislative purpose of restricting the firearm-related activity of convicted felons, the readings we give to the commerce requirement, although not all narrow, are appropriate. And consistent with our regard for the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction, our reading preserves as an element of all the offenses a requirement suited to federal criminal jurisdiction alone.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins the judgment of the Court and the opinion except for Part III. No question of the quantum of evidence necessary to establish the Government's prima facie case is before the Court, and he would await a case properly presenting that question before deciding it.
"Any person who -- "
"(1) has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony, or"
"(2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, or"
"(3) has been adjudged by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of being mentally incompetent, or"
"(4) having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his citizenship, or"
"(5) being an alien is illegally or unlawfully in the United States, and who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."
Respondent was acquitted on another count charging him with carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony (the sale of a narcotic drug), a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2).
At this date, six circuits and numerous district courts have decided the issue. The Government's view was adopted in United States v. Cabbler, 429 F.2d 577 (CA4 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 901; United States v. Donofrio, 450 F.2d 1054 (CA5 1971); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (CA6 1971) (one judge dissenting); United States v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (CA8 1971); United States v. Daniels, 431 F.2d 697 (CA9 1970). The result reached by the Second Circuit in this case has also been reached in United States v. Harbin, 313 F.Supp. 50 (ND Ind.1970); United States v. Steed, No. CR 70-57 (WD Tenn. May 11, 1970); United States v. Phelps, No. CR 14,465 (MD Tenn. Feb. 10, 1970); United States v. Francis, No. CR 12,684 (ED Tenn. Dec. 12, 1969).
In light of our disposition of the case, we do not reach the question whether, upon appropriate findings Congress can constitutionally punish the "mere possession" of firearms; thus, we need not consider the relevance, in that connection, of our recent decision in Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971). The question whether the definition of "felony" in § 1202(c)(2) creates a classification violating the Fifth Amendment was not raised in the Government's Petition for Certiorari, and is also not considered here.
Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Col.L.Rev. 527, 543 (1947).
Compare United States v. Standard Brewery, Inc., 251 U. S. 210, 251 U. S. 218 (1920), with FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U. S. 385, 359 U. S. 389-390 (1959); see also 2 J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 4921 (3d ed.1943); K. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition 527 (1960).
The Government, noting that there is no comma after "transports," argues that the punctuation indicates a congressional intent to limit the qualifying phrase to the last antecedent. But many leading grammarians, while sometimes noting that commas at the end of series can avoid ambiguity, concede that use of such commas is discretionary. See, e.g., B. Evans & C. Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage 103 (1957); M. Nicholson, A Dictionary of American-English Usage 94 (1957); R. Copperud, A Dictionary of Usage and Style 94-95 (1964); cf. W. Strunk & E. White, The Elements of Style 1-2 (1959). When grammarians are divided, and surely where they are cheerfully tolerant, we will not attach significance to an omitted comma. It is enough to say that the statute's punctuation is fully consistent with the respondent's interpretation, and that, in this case, grammatical expertise will not help to clarify the statute's meaning.
"Congress might have felt that the broader scope of the term 'transports,' as compared to the terms 'receives' or 'possesses,' justified its qualification by the interstate commerce requirement."
Brief for the United States 14-15. The Government's view about the comparative breadth of the various offenses certainly does not follow from its definition of "transports." But beyond that, its argument about what Congress "might have felt" is purely speculative, and finds no support in any arguable purpose of the statute. There is certainly no basis for concluding that Congress was less concerned about the transporting and supplying of guns than their acquisition.
434 F.2d at 1298. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (prostitution); 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (robbery and extortion); 18 U.S.C. § 1231 (strike-breaking); 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (kidnaping); 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (gambling); 18 U.S.C. § 842(i) (explosives); 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (antitrust); 15 U.S.C. § 77e (securities fraud).
"any offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but does not include any offense (other than one involving a firearm or explosive) classified as a misdemeanor under the laws of a State and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. . . ."
Title IV reaches persons "under indictment for, or . . . convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"; fugitives from justice; users or addicts of various drugs; persons adjudicated as "mental defective[s] or . . . committed" to a mental institution. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (h).
"shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received [in interstate or foreign commerce]."
"[T]he Act is confined to the receipt of firearms or ammunition as a part of interstate transportation, and does not extend to the receipt, in an intrastate transaction, of such articles which, at some prior time, have been transported interstate."
Id. at 319 U. S. 466. While the reach of Title IV itself is a question to be decided finally some other day, the Government has presented here no learning or other evidence indicating that the 1968 Act changed the prior approach to the "receipt" offense. See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 115 (1968).
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 started its life as a measure designed to aid state and local governments in law enforcement by means of financial and administrative assistance. See H.R.Rep. No. 488, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). The bill passed the House on August 8, 1967, and went to the Senate. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate (S. 917) and went to the Committee on the Judiciary, which rewrote it completely. See S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., supra. The amendments included the much-debated provisions regarding the admissibility of confessions, wiretapping, and state firearms control.
On May 17, 1968, Senator Long introduced on the floor his amendment to S. 917, which he designated Title VII. His introductory remarks set forth the purpose of the amendment. 114 Cong.Rec. 13867-13869. About a week later he explained his amendment once again. There was a brief debate; the reaction was favorable but cautious, with "further thought" and "study" being suggested by several favorably inclined Senators who observed some problems with the bill as drafted. Unexpectedly, however, there was a call for a vote and Title VII passed without modification. See 114 Cong.Rec. 14772-14775. The amendment received only passing mention in the House discussion of the bill, 114 Cong.Rec. 16286, 16298, and never received committee consideration or study in the House either.
See 114 Cong.Rec. 13868-13871, 14772-14775.
"I have prepared an amendment which I will offer at an appropriate time, simply setting forth the fact that anybody who has been convicted of a felony [or comes within certain other categories] . . . is not permitted to possess a firearm. . . ."
"The Congress hereby finds and declares that the receipt, possession, or transportation of a firearm by felons, veterans who are discharged under dishonorable conditions, mental incompetents, aliens who are illegally in the country, and former citizens who have renounced their citizenship, constitutes -- "
"(1) a burden on commerce or threat affecting the free flow of commerce,"
"(2) a threat to the safety of the President of the United States and Vice President of the United States,"
"(3) an impediment or a threat to the exercise of free speech and the free exercise of a religion guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and"
"(4) a threat to the continued and effective operation of the Government of the United States and of the government of each State guaranteed by article IV. of the Constitution."
The Government argues that these findings would have been "wholly unnecessary" unless Congress intended to prohibit all receipts and possessions of firearms by felons. But these findings of "burdens" and "threats" simply state Congress' view of the constitutional basis for its power to act; the findings do not tell us how much of Congress' perceived power was in fact, invoked. That the findings in fact, support a statute broader than the one actually passed is suggested by the fact that "in commerce or affecting commerce" does not appear at all in the introductory clause to the "findings," even though § 1202(a) contains the phrase and concededly reaches only transportation "in commerce or affecting commerce."
Holmes prefaced his much-quoted statement with the observation that "it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals. . . ." But, in the case of gun acquisition and possession, it is not unreasonable to imagine a citizen attempting to "[steer] a careful course between violation of the statute [and lawful conduct]," United States v. Hood, 343 U. S. 148, 343 U. S. 151 (1952). Of course, where there is a state law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, as in New York State, N.Y.Penal Law § 265.05 (Supp. 1971-1972), it may be unreal to argue that there are notice problems under the federal law. There are many States, however, that do not have their own laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. See Geisel, Roll, & Wettick, The Effectiveness of State and Local Regulation of Handguns: A Statistical Analysis, 1969 Duke L.J. 647, 652-653. Since ex-offenders in these States are limited only by the federal gun control laws, the notice problem of that law may be quite real.
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469, 310 U. S. 513 (1940); United States v. Five Gambling Devices, 346 U. S. 441, 346 U. S. 449-450 (1953) (plurality opinion); FTC v. Bunte Bros., Inc., 312 U. S. 349, 312 U. S. 351, 312 U. S. 354-355 (1941); Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Col.L.Rev. 527, 539-540 (1947). Cf. Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board, 351 U. S. 266, 351 U. S. 274-275 (1956); Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 308 U. S. 83-84 (1939); Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, 352 U. S. 225-226 (1957).
H. Hart & A. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1241 (tent. ed.1958).
This reading preserves a significant difference between the "receipt" offenses under Title IV and Title VII. See supra, at 404 U. S. 342-343.
1. The statute, 18 U.S.C.A.pp. § 1202(a), when it speaks of one "who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce," although arguably ambiguous and, a the Government concedes, "not a model of logic or clarity," [Footnote 2/2] is clear enough. The structure of the vital language and its punctuation make it refer to one who receives, to one who possesses, and to one who transports in commerce. If one wished to say that he would welcome a cat, would welcome a dog, or would welcome a cow that jumps over the moon, he would likely say "I would like to have a cat, a dog, or a cow that jumps over the moon." So it is here.
2. The meaning the Court implants on the statute is justified only by the addition and interposition of a comma after the word "transports." I perceive no warrant for this judicial transfiguration.
3. In the very same statute the phrase "after the date of enactment of this Act" is separated by commas and undeniably modifies each of the preceding words, "receives," "possesses," and "transports." Obviously, then, the draftsman -- and the Congress -- knew the use of commas for phrase modification. We should give effect to the only meaning attendant upon that use.
4. The specific finding in 18 U.S.C.App. § 1201 [Footnote 2/3] clearly demonstrates that Congress was attempting to reach and prohibit every possession of a firearm by a felon; that Congress found that such possession, whether interstate or intrastate, affected interstate commerce; and that Congress did not conclude that intrastate possession was a matter of less concern to it than interstate possession. That finding was unnecessary if Congress also required proof that each receipt or possession of a firearm was in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
"I have prepared an amendment which I will offer at an appropriate time, simply setting forth the fact that anybody who has been convicted of a felony . . . is not permitted to possess a firearm. . . ."
to possess firearms. He would be punished criminally if he is found in possession of them."
114 Cong.Rec. 13868 (emphasis supplied).
"So Congress simply finds that the possession of these weapons by the wrong kind of people is either a burden on commerce or a threat that affects the free flow of commerce."
"You cannot do business in an area, and you certainly cannot do as much of it and do it as well as you would like, if in order to do business you have to go through a street where there are burglars, murderers, and arsonists armed to the teeth against innocent citizen. So the threat certainly affects the free flow of commerce."
114 Cong.Rec. 13869 (emphasis supplied).
"What the amendment seeks to do is to make it unlawful for a firearm -- be it a handgun, a machinegun, a long-range rifle, or any kind of firearm -- to be in the possession of a convicted felon who has not been pardoned and who has therefore lost his right to possess firearms. . . . It also relates to the transportation of firearms."
"Clauses 1-5 describe persons who, by their actions, have demonstrated that they are dangerous, or that they may become dangerous. Stated simply, they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society. This title would apply both to hand guns and to long guns."
"All of these murderers had shown violent tendencies before they committed the crime for which they are most infamous. They should not have been permitted to possess a gun. Yet, there is no Federal law which would deny possession to these undesirables. "
"The killer of Medgar Evers, the murderer of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi, the defendants who shot Captain Lemuel Penn (on a highway while he was driving back to Washington after completion of reserve Military duty) would all be free under present Federal law to acquire another gun and repeat those same sorts of crimes in the future."
"So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and has been expressly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm."
"It has been said that Congress lacks the power to outlaw mere possession of weapons. . . ."
". . . The important point is that this legislation demonstrates that possession of a deadly weapon by the wrong people can be controlled by Congress, without regard to where the police power resides under the Constitution."
"Without question, the Federal Government does have power to control possession of weapons where such possession could become a threat to interstate commerce. . . ."
"State gun control laws where they exist have proven inadequate to bar possession of firearms from those most likely to use them for unlawful purposes. . . ."
who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to possess a firearm -- those whose prior acts -- mostly voluntary -- have placed them outside of our society. . . ."
". . . I am convinced that we have enough constitutional power to prohibit these categories of people from possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm. . . ."
"This amendment would provide that a convicted felon who participates in one of these marches and is carrying a firearm would be violating the law. . . ."
114 Cong.Rec. 147714774 (emphasis supplied). One cannot detect in these remarks any purpose to restrict or limit the type of possession that was being considered for proscription.
6. The Court's construction of § 1202(a), limiting its application to interstate possession and receipt, shrinks the statute into something little more than a duplication of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (h). I cannot ascribe to Congress such a gesture of nonaccomplishment.
I thus conclude that § 1202(a) was intended to and does reach all possessions and receipts of firearms by convicted felons, and that the Court should move on and decide the constitutional issue present in this case.
Unappealed district court decisions are in conflict. Those upholding the Government's position include United States v. Davis, 314 F.Supp. 1161 (ND Miss.1970); United States v. Vicar, No. CR 44,205 (ED Mich. June 29, 1970) (en banc); United States v. Childress, No. 803R (ED Va. Jan. 6, 1969); United States v. Boggs, No. 8138 (Wyo., June 17, 1970). Those opposed include United States v. Harbin, 313 F.Supp. 50 (ND Ind.1970); United States v. Steed, No. CR 70-57 (WD Tenn. May 11, 1970); United States v. Phelps, No. CR 14,465 (MD Tenn. Feb. 10, 1970); United States v. Francis, No. CR 12,684 (ED Tenn. Dec. 12, 1969).
"§ 1201. Congressional findings and declaration."
"The Congress hereby finds and declares that the receipt, possession, or transportation of a firearm by felons . . . constitutes -- "
"(1) a burden on commerce or threat affecting the free flow of commerce. . . ."

References: § 1202
 § 1202
 § 1202
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1202
 § 1202
 v. 
 § 924
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1202
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4921
 § 2421
 § 1952
 § 1951
 § 1231
 § 1201
 § 1084
 § 842
 § 1
 § 77
 § 1202
 v. 
 § 265
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1202
 § 1201
 § 1202
 § 1202
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.