Opinion ID: 588159
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Original Version

Text: 34 Section 924(c) evolved through a circuitous process of legislative activity concerning law enforcement and gun control in 1967 and 1968. In 1967, Congress took up various anti-crime measures urged by the Johnson administration. 3 Hearings in both houses produced a consensus that dramatic action at the federal level to strengthen law enforcement and curb crime was necessary. Several bills were introduced in the House and the Senate on this theme. One of these, H.R. 5384, restructured federal regulation of the ownership and use of firearms. Two others, H.R. 5037 and S. 917, concerned a wide variety of criminal and law enforcement topics, ranging from electronic surveillance to habeas corpus. These latter two bills became the bases of omnibus crime acts passed in both houses. 35 The House passed its omnibus act first, the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967. 4 The Senate omnibus bill borrowed from the House the provisions of H.R. 5384, which related to federal gun control, and enacted them as Title IV of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the Omnibus Act). 5 Almost as soon as the new gun control provisions became law, they were amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the Gun Control Act) which contained § 924(c). 6 This Act was also based on the early House gun control bill, H.R. 5384, but was given new vigor by the tragic events of 1968. 36 Section 924(c) appears at first blush to have sprung Athena-like from the head of its sponsor in the House during debates on the Gun Control Act. In reality, its birthing was considerably more protracted. The legislation whose purpose it expressed so clearly was the product of extensive deliberation and the historical circumstances of 1968. Taken with the language and structure of the statute itself, this context convinces me enhancing penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of crimes went to the heart of legislative objectives that year. 7 37
38 The genesis of § 924 was in the firearms regulation legislation introduced in the House in 1967, H.R. 5384. A subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary conducted lengthy hearings on this bill and other anti-crime measures proposed by the Johnson administration, 8 and reported several bills during the course of 1967. The House passed one of these as an omnibus crime act in August of that year. 9 39 The gun control provisions of H.R. 5384 were taken up by the Senate as part of its own omnibus crime legislation, S. 917. 10 They comprised Title IV, State Firearms Control Assistance. 11 Title IV contained a declaration of congressional findings and the introduction to title 18 of the U.S.Code of a new chapter entitled Firearms. 12 Section 924 provided Penalties for violations of the provisions of the new chapter. 13 These penalties, having originated in a House bill in 1967 and made their way into the Senate's omnibus crime legislation, were enacted into law June 6, 1968, in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. 14 It was Title IV of this act, § 924, into which § 924(c) was inserted later by the Gun Control Act as an amendment. 15 40 On June 6, 1968, the day the Omnibus Act passed, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated and the demand to enhance penalties for crimes committed with firearms became more urgent. Even though the Omnibus Act was only four days old, the Gun Control Act, H.R. 17735, was introduced in the House at the request of the Department of Justice on June 10, 1968, to amend Title IV of the Omnibus Act. 16 The Senate introduced a similar measure. Justice Rehnquist, construing § 924(c) in this historical context, later remarked: 41 Several different bills dealing with firearms control, which had been bottled up in various stages of the legislative process prior to June 1968, were brought to the floor and enacted with dramatic swiftness following the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the early part of that month. Senator Kennedy's assassination, following by less than three months the similar killing of Reverend Martin Luther King, obviously focused the attention of Congress on the problem of firearms control. It seems to me not only permissible but irresistible, in reading the language of the two statutes, to conclude that Congress intended when it enacted § 924(c) to authorize the enhancement of the sentence already imposed by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). 42 Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 18, 98 S.Ct. 909, 915, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). Both houses passed bills essentially in the form of H.R. 17735, which became public law number 90-618. 17 43 Section 924(c) was added as a floor amendment in the House during passage of the Gun Control Act. I discuss the passage of the Gun Control Act further below. One observation on its confused evolution is in order, however. The dramatic increases in crimes committed with firearms in 1967 and 1968, 18 the lengthy and intensive legislative attention to firearms control, and the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Medgar Evers all underscore a congressional purpose to increase federal regulation of firearms and enhance penalties for those who would use firearms in the commission of felonies. Section 924 was the manifestation of this intent to increase penalties, both in the Omnibus Act and its later amendment by the Gun Control Act. This extrinsic evidence of congressional purpose is further strengthened by an analysis of the internal structure of Title IV and § 924 in the Omnibus Act, and the placement of § 924(c) within this structure in the Gun Control Act. 44
45 Chapter 44, the Firearms provisions of Title IV of the Omnibus Act, set out a more stringent federal gun control regime than had existed previously. Section 924 described penalties for violations of the new provisions. The principal purpose of Title IV was to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency, and to assist law enforcement authorities in the States and their subdivisions in combating the increasing prevalence of crime in the United States. 19 46 Each of the sections of Title IV was addressed to this purpose. For example, Section 922 entitled Unlawful acts 20 contained prohibitions on importing, dealing and manufacturing firearms, licensing requirements and mail-order restrictions, and a subsection which made knowingly transporting a stolen firearm or destructive device a crime. 21 It is particularly noteworthy that, from the outset, the legislative practice when defining these new crimes was to begin every subsection of 922 with the introductory phrase: It shall be unlawful--for.... The omission of similar language from subsection 924, in either its original or present form, is therefore especially pregnant. 47 Section 923 described requirements for licensing and for doing business as a firearms or ammunition importer, manufacturer or dealer. 22 Thus the order of the chapter was: definitions, followed by criminal acts, followed by licensing requirements, followed by penalties. 48 Section 924 provided penalties for violations of the actions deemed to be Unlawful acts by other sections of the chapter. So, for example, § 924(a) stated: 49 Whoever violates any provision of this chapter or knowingly makes any false statement or representation ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 50 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 279 (emphasis added). Subsection 924(b) stated: 51 Whoever, with intent to commit therewith an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... ships, transports, or receives a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 52 Id. (emphasis added). 53 The original subsection 924(c) of the Omnibus Act involved forfeiture provisions penalizing the use of firearms in violating the provisions of the chapter, or any regulations under it, or any other criminal law of the United States. This first subsection (c) read: 54 Any firearm or ammunition involved in, or used or intended to be used in, any violation of the provisions of this chapter, or a rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, or violation of any other criminal law of the United States, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture.... 55 Id. (emphasis added). 56 The provision which we now know as § 924(c) was inserted as an amendment to the Gun Control Act during final passage in the House. The earlier § 924(c) in the Omnibus Act was redesignated as § 924(d). 23 These early versions of § 924 support the conclusion that the placement of the current subsection (c) within § 924 was both intended and logical. 57 In short, subsections (a) and (b) of § 924, Penalties, in the Senate Omnibus bill clearly described penalties of fines or imprisonment for Unlawful acts outlined in the preceding sections of Chapter 44, Firearms. 24 Like subsections (a) and (b), subsection (c) operated as a Penalt[y] for violations of the provisions of the chapter or for violations of other criminal laws. In subsection (c) the penalty was forfeiture, rather than a fine or imprisonment, for using a weapon illegally. Like the subsequent § 924(c) with which we are concerned, the original provision did not create a crime, but intended only to provide for a type of penalty for the violation of a crime described elsewhere in the specific law, or in the general criminal laws.
58 The provision which is now § 924(c) was proposed as a floor amendment to the Gun Control Act by Representative Poff. Section 924(c) penalized with a fine or imprisonment someone who uses firearms to commit an underlying crime described elsewhere. This amendment was inserted logically between subsection (b), which punished acquisition of a firearm with intent to commit another crime, and the original subsection (c), which penalized with forfeiture use of a firearm to commit another crime. As enacted, the amendment stated: 59 Whoever-- 60 (1) uses a firearm to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or 61 (2) carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, 62 shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than 10 years. In the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 25 years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of such person or give him a probationary sentence. 63 Gun Control Act of 1968, § 924(c), 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1409. 64 This floor amendment adding § 924(c) simply imposed a punishment of not more than ten years' imprisonment for the violation of the underlying felony specified elsewhere in the statute or in other statutes. Section 924(c) thus fits nicely between § 924(b), which penalized shipping firearms with intent to commit a felony, and the original § 924(c) of the Omnibus Act, which provided the specific penalty of forfeiture for the involvement of a firearm in a violation of the chapter or any criminal law. These penalties were expanded with the addition of § 924(c) to include a penalty (fine or imprisonment), which applied to firearms involved in the commission of felonies specified elsewhere in the chapter or in the criminal laws. The current form of § 924(c) follows that same construction. 65 The statement of Representative Poff introducing § 924(c) as an amendment on the House floor is instructive: 66 For the sake of legislative history, it should be noted that my substitute is not intended to apply to title 18, sections 111, 112, or 113 which already define the penalties for the use of a firearm in assaulting officials, with sections 2113 or 2114 concerning armed robberies of the mail or banks, with section 2231 concerning armed assaults upon process servers or with chapter 44 which defines other firearm felonies. 67 Rep. Poff, 114 Cong.Rec. 22231, 22232 (1968) (emphasis added), cited in Simpson, 435 U.S. at 13, 98 S.Ct. at 913. 68 Shortly after the House passed the Poff amendment, a similar amendment was introduced to the Senate gun control bill, S. 3633, by Senator Dominick. 25 It also provided for increased punishment whenever a firearm was used to commit a federal offense. 26 69 [T]he Senate amendment, contrary to Mr. Poff's view of § 924(c), would have permitted the imposition of an enhanced sentence for the use of a firearm in the commission of any federal crime, even where allowance was already made in the provisions of the substantive offense for augmented punishment where a dangerous weapon is used. 70 114 Cong.Rec. at 27143 (emphasis added), cited in Simpson, 435 U.S. at 14, 98 S.Ct. at 914. 71 Once the Gun Control Act passed the Senate, both versions of § 924(c) were sent to the Conference Committee on the Act. The House provision, Rep. Poff's amendment, was adopted by the Conference, with a reduction in the penalties originally proposed. 27 72 While it is true there are no separate committee reports dealing specifically with the floor amendment to H.R. 17735 that became § 924(c), there is the report of the Conference on the Act. That report is accorded a good deal more weight than the remarks even of the sponsor of a particular portion of a bill on the floor of the chamber. 28 73 The Conference Report on H.R. 17735 stated: The Senate struck out all of the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute amendment. The committee of conference has agreed to a substitute for both the House bill and the Senate amendment. 29 The Conference Report enumerated the compromises reached with the Senate on the bill. The first was a change in title from the House title, State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1968, to the Gun Control Act of 1968. 30 The definitional section of the Conference Report provided the following explanation of the compromise agreement on defining crimes:Definition of crimes --Both the House bill and the Senate amendment prohibited the shipment, transportation, and receipt of firearms and ammunition by persons under indictment for, or convicted of, certain crimes.... A difference between the House bill and the Senate amendment which recurs in the provisions described above is that the crime referred to in the House bill is one punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year and the crime referred to in the Senate amendment is a crime of violence punishable as a felony. 74 Under both the House bill and the Senate amendment the crimes were defined to exclude Federal and State offenses relating to antitrust violations and similar business offenses. The conference substitute adopts the crime referred to in the House bill (one punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year ) but excludes from that crime any State offense not involving a firearm or explosive, classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor, and punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than 2 years. 75 Id. at 4428 (emphasis added). 76 Two observations arise from this report. First, because the definition of the underlying crime was constructed to operate with reference to crimes defined in the laws of the states, it is exceptionally difficult to reason that § 924(c) itself created a criminal offense. The statute must, by definition, relate to crimes described elsewhere--including in this version of the statute, the criminal codes of the states. 77 Second, the Conference Report, like the underlying House and Senate bills, described acts made unlawful by the legislation without mentioning § 924(c) as a criminal act, even though the floor amendment adopting it had already been passed. 31 The floor amendment, as would be expected, is treated as a Penalty. 32 Under the Penalties section the Conference Report describes those of the original two bills. The Senate bill had listed stiffer penalties for a violation of Chapter 44, but the Conference Committee adopted the House version. Omission of § 924(c) from Unlawful acts further undercuts the notion that § 924(c) can function as an independent crime. Thus, to this point in its legislative history, § 924(c) lived in the eyes of Congress only as a penalty provision, and not as a distinct crime. 78 It is clear that the Gun Control Act was the last iteration in a lengthy process of legislative activity beginning in 1967 which made certain acts criminal for the first time and specified new penalties for those and other felonies. The penalties in § 924(c) are part of this continuum, rather than a hurried, unrelated addition which had no real relevance to the legislative context. The prevailing concern at the time of passage in 1968 of both the Omnibus Act and the Gun Control Act was to strengthen federal regulation for the illegal use of guns and increase penalties to stem the rise in violent crimes committed with weapons. 79 Given this context, I have to disagree with Sudduth that the floor amendment to H.R. 17735 fell outside the pale of topics discussed during the evolution of the legislation. 33 Increased penalties for the use of weapons during the commission of violent crimes went to the heart of the statute's purpose, and the penalty provision must be interpreted in that light. 34 We were wrong, therefore, in Sudduth to construe § 924(c) outside its context of the other penalty provisions of Chapter 44. Sudduth, 457 F.2d at 1200. 80 Section 924(c) was amended in 1970, 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990. In each case, the amendments concerned only increasing the penalties and broadening the scope of crimes to which these penalties would apply. This history lends support to my conclusion that the purpose of the original statute was penalty enhancement. Following the rule of statutory construction stated in Sutherland that subsequent amendment is strong evidence of the intent of the first statute, 35 we must next consider the amendments to § 924(c) from 1970 to the present and some of the case law interpreting those amendments.