Court Opinion

ID: 9493355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:06:01.253942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:48.019912
License: Public Domain

STANTON, J.,
dissenting:
Standing alone, § 2K2.1(b)(2) could be read (as the majority does) not to apply to unlawful sales, but only to unlawful possession.
But subsection (b)(2) does not stand alone. It must be read in connection with Application Note 8.
Reading both together is not only natural; as the Government urges, it is a necessity. Quite correctly, the Government points out that “the base offense level reduction to level 6 referred to in Application Note 8 can only be understood to mean the reduction to level 6 provided by § 2K2.1(b)(2).” Appellee’s br. 12, n. 9. As the Government explains, “Otherwise, Application Note 8 would be meaningless because there is no other operative base level reduction provision within the rubric of § 2K2.1.” Id.
Integrally, Application Note 8 ties subsection (b)(2)’s reduction to sales, even though it may be unusual that a particular sale will qualify:
Subsection (a)(7) includes the interstate transportation or interstate distribution of firearms, which is frequently committed in violation of state, local, or other federal law restricting the possession of firearms, or from some other underlying unlawful purpose. In the unusual case in which it is established that neither avoidance of state, local, or other federal firearms law, nor any other underlying unlawful purpose was involved, a reduction in the base offense level to no lower than level 6 may be warranted to reflect the less serious nature of the violation.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, Commentary, Application Note 8.
Thus, subsection (b)(2)’s sentence reduction, and Application Note 8’s application of it to sales, are harmonious rather than in conflict.
The question whether the sale is a “use” which bars the reduction in subsection (b)(2) will be decided by whether the sale satisfied Note 8’s requirements, and the seller’s pre-sale possession complied with (b)(2).
The case should be remanded for determination whether Mr. Miller’s pre-sale possession was of the peaceable character required by subsection (b)(2), and whether *256his sales met the requirements of Application Note 8. If both qualify, his base level should be reduced to level 6.
The majority affirms a sentence imposed by a Judge who believed the law prevented her from even considering such matters. Respectfully, I dissent.