Court Opinion

ID: 9466537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:18:59.28594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:47.585306
License: Public Domain

SNEED, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in Parts I, II, and III of the court’s opinion. With respect to Part IV, I concur only in its result.
Part IV raises perplexing issues surrounding the proper interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Unfortunately the court’s opinion appears to do little to resolve any of these issues.
In my view Wilson’s argument that a conviction under the assault alternative of section 2113(d) requires proof that the gun was loaded is without merit. The flourishing or pointing of a pistol, whether loaded *420or not, by any able-bodied person constitutes a threat to inflict bodily harm coupled with a present ability to commit violent injury upon the person of another. Pistol whipping, at a minimum, is being threatened. That is a threat to inflict bodily harm by use of a dangerous weapon or device.
This should be stated explicitly. Having done so it would follow that the district court committed no reversible error in giving the instruction of which Wilson complains. We need not at this time decide whether such threats with an unloaded weapon constitute the placing “in jeopardy the life of any person.”
I should like to think that I have merely paraphrased what the court has said in Part IV. Of this, however, I cannot be certain.