Court Opinion

ID: 9487636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:22:42.94352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:24.306197
License: Public Domain

ERVIN, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
This case presents a straightforward question of statutory construction to determine whether the item Hamrick sent to the United States Attorney falls within the definition of a “deadly or dangerous weapon” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 111(b). Beyond the plain meaning of the words Congress employed, neither the statute nor its legislative history offers guidance on this question, a fact the plurality opinion implicitly acknowledges through its act of “borrowing” the jurisprudence of a separate provision of the United States Code. In my view, the plain meaning suffices to convince me that an incomplete bomb lacking an igniter is not a “deadly or dangerous weapon” for purposes of sentence enhancement. Because I do not believe that the borrowed provision is apposite to the statute in question, or that the application of its teaching in this instance leads to the result the plurality believes dictated, I respectfully dissent.1
I
As the plurality opinion notes, the statute in question provides a penalty enhancement *893for any person who assaults one of a class of current or former federal officers while they are engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties. Although the maximum statutory penalty for such offense is three years, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), anyone who uses a “deadly or dangerous weapon” in the commission of such acts is subject to a maximum penalty of ten.years, id. § 111(b). Thus, before a defendant can be eligible for the punishment provided under § 111(b), it is necessary to determine whether the assault involved the use of a “deadly or dangerous weapon.”
The role of the courts in cases of statutory construction is to give effect to Congressional intent, Negonsott v. Samuels, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 1119, 1122-23, 122 L.Ed.2d 457, 465 (1993); to do more is to transgress the boundaries of the Articles of the Constitution and to engage ourselves as legislators rather than jurists, to allow ourselves to say what we think the law is, or ought to be, rather than what Congress has told us it is. While this temptation hangs always before the judiciary as a tantalizing fruit, it is to us constitutionally forbidden. Because our concern is to carry out that which Congress has wrought, in determining whether any action or situation falls within the borders of the class of activities Congress intended to reach through statutory prohibition we begin with the words of the statute itself, for if they are clear and unambiguous, the task of the courts is ended. Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2589, 2594, 120 L.Ed.2d 379, 388 (1992); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2527, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981); United States v. Southern Mgt. Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 920 (4th Cir.1992). Where the intent of Congress is not clear, we must reach for traditional tools of statutory construction to assist us in elucidating, but never extending or supplanting, Congressional intention as to the scope of the statute in question. Public Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 453-55, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2566-67, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Gray v. Director, OWCP, 943 F.2d 513, 516 (4th Cir.1991).
The enhanced penalty applies to the use of a “deadly or dangerous weapon:” Congress did not provide a definition to guide courts in discerning the parameters of this category of items. The first step for the courts thus is to look to the normal meaning of the words Congress employed. Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108, 111 S.Ct. 461, 465, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990); Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 21, 104 S.Ct. 296, 299-300, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983). The applicable definition that Webster’s Third New International Dictionary offers for “deadly” discloses a thing “tending to produce death: productive of death.” The applicable definitions for “dangerous” include “exposing to danger” and “able or likely to inflict injury.” Black’s Law Dictionary offers definitions for both “deadly weapon” and “dangerous weapon.” The definition for the former, derived from the Model Penal Code, is:
Any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
The definition for the latter is:
One dangerous to life; one by the use of which a serious or fatal wound or injury may probably or possibly be inflicted. In [the] context of criminal possession of a weapon [it] can be any article which, in circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury. People v. Green, 4 Dept., 124 A.D.2d 725 [1065], 508 N.Y.S.2d 725, 726. What constitutes a “dangerous *894weapon” depends not on [the] nature of the object itself but on its capacity, given [the] manner of its use, to endanger life or inflict great bodily harm. U.S. v. Bey, C.A.Ga., 667 F.2d 7, 11.
All these definitions, and likely all other definitions of both “dangerous” and “deadly,” focus on the capability of an item actually to pose a danger of injury or death to some individual. As adjectives, “deadly” and “dangerous” are typically used to restrict the list of weapons to a particular subset having certain capabilities, viz, the capabilities of causing serious or fatal injury.
Given these meanings to the words Congress chose, I would have no difficulty in stating that a bomb properly can be said to be a “deadly or dangerous weapon.” What this case involves, however, is not a bomb. While the plurality opinion describes it at one point as a “dysfunctional” bomb, suggesting a bomb that functions but in an improper manner, and uses in another place the label “inoperative,” suggesting it could operate but for some reason did not, the most accurate label for Hamrick’s device would be “incomplete,” for it lacked at least one necessary element to make it work, an effective igniter. However ingenious Hamrick’s invention, I do not see how this assembly of batteries, wires, lip balm and lighters can be labeled a “bomb,” when a central element, necessary to its operation, is lacking.2 Just as plastic explosives consisting wholly of lip balm could not be called “plastic explosives,” so too this hodgepodge of materials cannot honestly be called a bomb.
Regardless of in which direction one resolves the question of whether this item properly can be called a “bomb,” the focus here is not on whether the device is or is not a bomb but rather on whether it is or is not a deadly or dangerous weapon, every definition of which focuses on a capability for inflicting injury or death. As the testimony of Hamrick’s expert demonstrated vividly at trial, there appears to be no possibility, given the inert nature of the igniter material Ham-rick chose to utilize, that this item posed the slightest threat to anyone. While the plurality opinion dramatically relates that upon being opened, “[t]he bomb scorched the packaging in which it had been mailed, but did not detonate,” the scorching was the result of the application of the electric current from the batteries to the pad of paper and was so slight that it was invisible to the naked eye. This in itself was a mistake, since the electric current properly should have affected not the paper pad but the lip balm, which, of course, is an inert substance that will not ignite, its designated function. Whatever appellation is given to this assembly of materials, it held no threat of deadly or dangerous harm to anyone. This being the case, a facial reading of the statute, giving its words their normally understood meaning, suggests that an incomplete bomb such as the one here involved does not fall within the scope of the statute’s penalty enhancement provision.
Nor does the legislative history of this statute alter this conclusion. The particular statute in question was first enacted in 1934 as an attempt to penalize comprehensively action against a federal officer in the course of official duties. Pub.L. No. 73-230, 48 Stat. 780 (1934). The House and Senate reports accompanying the legislation do not disclose any Congressional intent on the question of the parameters of the weapons that subject a defendant to sentence enhancement; the House report simply states, opaquely: “If a dangerous weapon is used in the commission of any such offense the penalty is increased.” H.R.Rep. No. 1465, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1934).3 The legislative history does, however, provide clear indications as to the antecedent legislation on which this statute was based. In a letter from the Attorney General to the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees, reprinted in both committees’ reports, General Cummings states:
I wish again to renew the recommendation of this Department that legislation be enacted making it a Federal offense forcibly *895to resist, impede, or interfere with, or to assault or kill, any official or employee of the United States while engaged in, or on account of, the performance of his official duties. Congress has already made it a Federal offense to assault, resist, etc., officers or employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture while engaged in or on account of the execution of their duties (see. 62, C.C.; sec. 118, title 18, U.S.C.); to assault, resist, etc., officers and others of the Customs and Internal Revenue, while engaged in the execution of their duties (sec. 65, C.C.; sec. 121, title 18, U.S.C.); to assault, resist, beat, wound, etc., any officer of the United States, or other person duly authorized, while serving or attempting to serve the process of any Court of the United States (sec. 140, C.C.; sec. 245, title 18, U.S.C.); and to assault, resist, etc., immigration officials or employees while engaged in the performance of their duties,(sec. 16, Immigration Act of Feb. 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 885; see. 152, title 8, U.S.C.). Three of the statutes just cited impose an increased penalty when a deadly or dangerous weapon is used in resisting the officer or employee.
Id. at 2; S.Rep. No. 535, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1934). Notably, there is no reference to the legislation contemporaneously being considered by Congress involving bank robbery, which the plurality opinion borrows for use in this instance. See part II, infra. A review of the three prior statutes mentioned in the Attorney General’s letter that include penalty enhancements for use of a deadly or dangerous device, as well as their committee reports and floor debates, also provide little or no guidance on the question of the reach of those terms.4 Thus, nothing in the legislative history of this statute or its direct legislative precursors suggests that the statute should be read to encompass items that do not fall within the plain meaning of the terms “deadly” or “dangerous.” Given the clarity of the terms Congress utilized, and the absence of any indication from a valid source of legislative history suggesting that the terms are pregnant with meaning beyond that with which they ordinarily are imputed, I would hold that an incomplete, inert “bomb” does not fall within the boundaries of the phrase “deadly or dangerous weapon.”
II
Until this point the plurality apparently does not disagree, for it passes silently over the questions of the plain meaning and legislative history of § 111(b). Instead, it reaches out to find guidance in the legislative history and jurisprudence of another statute that includes the similar, but not identical, language “dangerous weapon or device.” Not every statute of similar phraseology can cast light into the void of the subject provision, and courts approach this task with care, for similarity in language may mask dissimilarity *896in circumstance, purpose, or historical meaning. Bearing in mind the dangers that can result from an uncritical borrowing, and thus applying heightened scrutiny to the task at hand, it is my belief in this case that the statutes themselves are so dissimilar, as the legislative history and the jurisprudence disclose, that the second statute sheds no light into the void of the first.5
The helping statute that the plurality opinion relies upon is the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Under subsection (d) of that provision, anyone who “puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device” is eligible for a sentence enhancement. Id. § 2113(d). In McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16, 106 S.Ct. 1677, 90 L.Ed.2d 15 (1986), the Supreme Court construed the “dangerous weapon” language of the statute to encompass an unloaded gun used in the commission of a bank robbery. The plurality opinion now relies on that opinion’s analysis, which offered three reasons in three sentences, as controlling precedent for this case.6
As a general matter, I simply disagree with the plurality’s initial assumption that the appearance of the word “dangerous” in both statutes indicates that word must be given the same meaning in each. As Justice Holmes pellucidly stated:
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.
Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S.Ct. 158, 159, 62 L.Ed. 372 (1918); see also R.A.V. v. St. Paul, — U.S. -, - & n. 5, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2566 & n. 5, 120 L.Ed.2d 305, 346 & n. 5 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring). Thus, it is not enough to say that the same operative word is present in the two statutes; we must instead focus on the contextual setting of the statutes and determine whether the construction of one informs that of the other.
The first reason the Court offered to support its conclusion that an unloaded gun is a “dangerous weapon” under § 2113(d) was that “a gun is an article that is typically and characteristically dangerous.” McLaughlin, 476 U.S. at 17, 106 S.Ct. at 1678. I agree with the plurality opinion that this prong of McLaughlin applies equally in determining whether an item constitutes a “deadly or dangerous weapon” under § 111(b); however, I disagree with the specific application here.
The question necessary for decision of this case is not, as the plurality opinion posits, whether “a bomb is typically and characteristically dangerous,” because the item with which we are dealing, as noted above, see Part I supra, simply cannot be labeled a bomb. To say that all bombs are typically and characteristically dangerous, and that this is a bomb, and therefore that this item is typically and characteristically dangerous, focuses on labels to the detriment of reality. A completed device that contains an inert necessary element that thwarts its operation simply cannot be called a “bomb” any more than a device with no barrel or made entirely out of straw could be called a “gun.” Even if we were to call it a “bomb” or “gun,” however, the question of whether such items still fit *897within the subset “typically and characteristically dangerous” must be revisited anew. While syllogistic reasoning has its place, once one of the syllogism’s premises is altered the validity of the conclusion is thrown into doubt. In the end, I simply believe that incomplete bombs are more similar to incomplete or faux guns than they are to unloaded guns, and that invocation of the first McLaughlin justification does not decide this matter.
It is with the second McLaughlin justification that the statutes clearly diverge. Under the bank robbery statute, “the display of a gun instills fear in the average citizen; as a consequence, it creates an immediate danger that a violent response will ensue.” Id. at 17-18, 106 S.Ct. at 1678 (footnote omitted) (emphasis supplied). While the plurality opinion discusses extensively the first half of the justification, involving the possibility that a bomb will instill fear, it devotes much less space to explaining how the opening of a bomb sent through the mail “creates an immediate danger that a violent response will ensue.” I think it clear that the focus of the dangerousness in § 2113(d) is on the presence of an immediate danger of violent “response” (not “reaction”); this is confirmed by the surrounding language in the statute, penalizing more heavily anyone who “puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device.” (Emphasis supplied.)7 Of course, in this instance, involving a letter bomb opened in a secure government office, the immediate danger of violent response is negligible, given the absence of the wrongdoer from the scene. The plurality opinion concedes this point ( [W]here, as here, the weapon has been mailed ... there is little risk of retaliation against the sender which would endanger those involved.”), but then asserts that “there is still an immediate danger of injury to those who flee or otherwise furiously react to the perceived threat to their lives, and to innocent bystanders.” While it is true that innocent bystanders may be injured during any reaction based on fear, this rule certainly reaches too far. The plurality opinion deftly changes the focus from response to the wrongdoer to reaction against the present danger, which, I submit, was not the approach within the statute’s, or the Court’s, contemplation. Not only would this sweep within its ambit the sending of real bombs or incomplete bombs, but also would reach any item, tangible or intangible, that causes or has the potential to cause some reaction that could cause harm. If Hamrick had phoned in a bomb threat the type of response the plurality opinion posits could result, making a voice a “deadly or dangerous weapon.” If he had mailed a letter stating that there was a bomb in the building about to explode, the letter would be a dangerous weapon. In fact, a bodily assault such as a fight often induces those nearby to flee, raising the same possibility of resulting harm. Focusing on the hypotheticals of the type offered by the plurality opinion does not, as far as can be discerned, allow us to determine in any principled way when not to apply the enhancement provision of § 111(b). This failure is notable, because an important task for the plurality is to distinguish in some principled way the instances in which a defendant can expect to fall into one sentencing category or the other.8 I simply think that the plurality’s reliance not on direct dangers *898brought about by the chance of immediate reaction but rather on tertiary dangers with unclear lines of demarcation stretches too far to reach the desired result.9
In the context of a bank robbery, many items can be said to be “dangerous.” While some objects are dangerous because of their actual ability to inflict harm, others are dangerous because, even though not in fact able to inflict harm, their apparent ability to do so through immediate use by the present wrongdoer lead to situations that are pregnant with the possibility of an immediate and violent response to resolve the situation. In the context of a federal officer’s receipt of a device through the mail, on the other hand, the incomplete bomb was incapable of inflicting harm; and even though there is some possibility that those receiving the device would be frightened by it, there is no analogous scenario of immediate danger of violent response to resolve the situation because there is no wrongdoer present. The term “dangerous” used in the context of bank robbery encapsulates a different set of possibilities than it does in the context of this sort of long-distance assault, with the former reaching significantly further than the latter.
Ill
The language of the statute suggests that an incomplete bomb should not be held to come within the scope of the phrase “deadly or dangerous weapon.” Nothing in the legislative history of this statute or its antecedents suggests otherwise. Having examined the bank robbery statute and its construction with the cautious and searching approach necessary when borrowing the construction of one statute to add meaning to that of another, I do not believe that the law that has developed in that area resolves the question in this situation, for the statutes vary too widely in circumstance. For these reasons, I dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge HALL, Judge MURNAGHAN, Judge MICHAEL, Senior Judge BUTZNER and Senior Judge PHILLIPS join this dissent.

. As to the question of whether this device constituted a "deadly or dangerous weapon” under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), eight of the fourteen judges of the en banc court vote to affirm the conviction, while six vote to reverse. Seven of the eight affirming judges join Judge Luttig’s plurality opinion in its reasoning on this point, contained in section II. Judge Hamilton concurs in the judgment alone. As to the question of whether this device constituted a “destructive device” under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (the definition for which appears at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (the definition for which appears at 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)), seven judges vote to affirm and seven vote to reverse, leading to an affirmance by an evenly divided court. The court thus divides evenly and affirms as to Counts I, II, III, VI, and VIII, as discussed in section III of Judge Luttig’s opinion. Although all of the judges of the court agree that the thirty year sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is mandated if Hamrick's device can properly be labeled a "destructive device,” because the court affirms by an equally divided vote over that underlying question, the affirmance of the sentence enhancement, as discussed in section VIII of Judge Luttig’s opinion, also is by an equally divided vote. Of course, “an affirmance by an equally divided Court is not entitled to precedential weight.” Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 234 n. 7, 107 S.Ct. 1722, 1730 n. 7, 95 L.Ed.2d 209 (1987) (citing Neil v. Riggers, 409 U.S. 188, 192, 93 S.Ct. 375, 378, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972)). Sections III and VIII of Judge Luttig's plurality opinion thus should be understood to be of no precedential value.
In the fifth paragraph of section II, the plurality cites three cases to bolster its contention that the bomb was a "deadly or dangerous weapon” under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b). A review of those cases discloses that each concerns itself with nothing more than the construction of the definition of "destructive device" contained in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The construction of that statute is precisely the issue on which the court has evenly divided as to counts I, II, III, VI, and VIII. None of these three cases addresses in any fashion the scope of the "deadly or dangerous weapon” statute.
I do not understand the logic of the plurality opinion's reliance on three cases construing whether certain items constituted “destructive devices” under one provision of the law to sup*892port its opinion that Hamrick’s device was a "deadly or dangerous weapon” under another provision. The language of the opinion offers no explication of that thinking beyond a mere con-clusory line, which contains a significant non sequitur, relying as it does on three cases discussing what constitutes a "destructive device" to support its easy conclusion ("[o]f course”) that "the bomb sent by Hamrick was dangerous.”
In addition to this citation to three cases, the paragraph continues with a recital of evidence from trial that was introduced to support the prosecution’s contention that this device met the definition of a "destructive device.” Again, I fail to see the connection.
It would be troubling if the plurality opinion merely attempted to use a definition or holding under one statute to explicate that of another. See part II, infra. Such an approach would simply disclose incorrect thinking that a court need not concern itself with technical, definitional niceties when dealing with Congressional enactments in the area of criminal law, so that one definition can take the place of another when necessary. What occurs here, however, is another matter entirely. The cases the plurality opinion cites were prominently relied upon by the prosecution in its brief to this court on rehearing en banc to support the position that the convictions as to the "destructive device” charges should be affirmed. The court affirms those convictions by an evenly divided vote; by implication, seven of the fourteen judges of the en banc court reject the approaches these cases take in application to the present facts. Yet, offering no explanation of how they advance our understanding of the "deadly or dangerous weapon” statute, the plurality opinion includes them in its discussion of that statute as a mere gratuity, and an unfortunate one indeed. The reader should be clear: as Judge Hamilton states, the scope of the destructive device statutes remains an uncertain question in this circuit, and the plurality opinion's citation to these cases cannot be taken as guidance for the future.
Finally, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for me to account for the charges of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance that Judge Luttig raises against this opinion and my prior panel opinion in his remarkable and unique separate concurring opinion. I do find it necessary, however, to explain briefly why I take issue with Judge Luttig's position that we have a solemn obligation to the public and to the Supreme Court to account for our views in every case, even cases in which the court is completely at loggerheads and the court divides evenly. The first purpose of a court is to decide the case before it. As an appellate court, we have a secondary duty to provide guidance to the lower courts of this circuit as to the law for their application in future cases. When there is a unanimous decision by this court, or even a majority opinion, the court properly explains the reasons that have guided it to the given result so that future courts may apply the rule either directly or through analogical reasoning to the matters before them. Thus both of our responsibilities are satisfied as the case is resolved and we have provided guidance to the lower courts. On the other hand, in a case such as the present one, where we affirm by an equally divided court, although we resolve the particular dispute before us by use of a background rule of affir-mance, we cannot provide any guidance to the lower courts for them to apply to future cases as to the legal question in controversy, for a majority of the judges cannot agree as to what the law dictates. Since we can provide no guidance, I think it is entirely appropriate that we not address the question on the merits, but instead leave it for another day.
When cases before the Supreme Court have resulted in an equally divided vote, it has been the practice of the Supreme Court in every instance that my research has disclosed to go no further than to state that the Court was equally divided and that it therefore affirms, whether in full or only partial resolution of the case at hand. E.g., Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1827, 128 L.Ed.2d 654 (1994) (full resolution); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Department of Revenue, 500 U.S. 172, 111 S.Ct. 2049, 114 L.Ed.2d 232 (1991) (same); United States v. France, 498 U.S. 335, 111 S.Ct. 805, 112 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (same); United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 561, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2625, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989) (partial resolution); Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 24, 108 S.Ct. 316, 319-20, 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987) (same). This practice comports with the view expressed above that when a court is unable to obtain a majority of judges voting for the same result, the better course is not to speak at all, for it cannot fulfill its responsibility to provide guidance to lower courts. If I am in error in this view, I am in good company. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Williams, 963 F.2d 567 (3d Cir.1992) (en banc); Lawrence v. Credithrift of America, 644 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc); Sundberg v. Mansour, 847 F.2d 1210 (6th Cir.1988) (en banc); Schultz v. Frisby, 822 F.2d 642 (7th Cir.1987) (enbanc), rev’d, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988); United States v. Furlow, 980 F.2d 476, 478 (8th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2353, 124 L.Ed.2d 261 (1993); United States v. Rivera, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir.1989) (en banc); Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 184 (11th Cir.1993) (en banc); Ginsburg, Feldman & Bress v. Federal Energy Admin., 591 F.2d 752 (D.C.Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 906, 99 S.Ct. 1994, 60 L.Ed.2d 374 (1979); Lariscey v. United States, 981 F.2d 1244 (Fed.Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2997, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993). The approach taken by Judge Luttig, in contrast, requires each judge of a court to provide a reason for his or her actions, no matter that such views are of no precedential value whatsoever, because we have a solemn duty to do so to assist the Supreme Court in evaluating the case. Besides noting my firm conviction that the Court is quite able from the trial record and the briefs of *893the parties to discern the matters that come before it without the particular aid of a deadlocked appellate court, especially on. an issue such as this one that has a developed jurisprudence in other circuits, I simply note the difference between my view and that of Judge Luttig as to our duties as judges. In my view, our role is to decide the cases before us, and if we cannot do that for whatever reason, we ought not to air our views. Judge Luttig’s view suggests that our duly is to prepare opinions not to guide the lower courts but to inform the higher one, and thus views our opinions more as briefs for the Court than as roadmaps for the courts. While that is one view, it is not my own, and I do not share his concern that we fail our duties by not adding more opinions to the Federal Reporter simply to provide fodder to the Court.

. Of course, the fact that Hamrick's prior attempts to construct an incendiary device were successful, related in detail in the majority opinion, has no bearing on whether this particular attempt was successful.

. The floor debate on the bill also fails to provide any guidance.

. For example, the report that accompanied the statute prohibiting assault on an employee of the Bureau of Animal Industry, with a sentence enhancement for use of "any dangerous or deadly weapon” in the process, Pub.L. No. 58-229, § 5, 33 Stat. 1264, 1265 (1905), states:
Imposing a heavy penalty for an assault or attack with a deadly weapon upon an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry while said inspector is engaged in the performance of his official duty. This provision is very necessary. During the past year two vicious, deadly, and unprovoked assaults have been made upon inspectors engaged in the performance of their official duties, and it was found that no statute existed under which the perpetrators could be proceeded against in the Federal courts. This is provided for in section 5 of the proposed bill.
H.R.Rep. No. 4200, 58th Cong., 3d Sess. 5 (1905); see also S.Rep. No. 4352, 58th Cong., 3d Sess. 4 (1905). If anything, the language con-ceming "vicious, deadly” assaults merely confirms the idea that Congress, in acting, had in mind scenarios in which actual deadly force was involved, an approach that is in harmony with the normal meaning of the words chosen, as discussed supra.
The 1909 revision of the criminal laws similarly discussed this matter, but only in the vaguest way. The revision statute recodified the Animal Industry bureau employee provision as well as the Customs or Internal Revenue employee provision. Pub.L. No. 60-350, §§ 62, 65, 35 Stat. 1100 (1909). While it slightly revised the language of each statute (omitting "who discharges any deadly weapon” as surplusage to the "use any deadly or dangerous weapon” language), the report and floor debate fail to discuss the operative terms "deadly” or "dangerous” whatsoever. See 42 Cong. Rec. 857-59 (Jan. 20, 1908) (floor debate with a reprinting of the relevant excerpts from the committee on the revision of the penal laws of the United States).

. Although the original versions of what are now § 111(b) and § 2113(d) were passed contemporaneously, the legislative history of § 111(b) makes clear that it was directly based on antecedent legislation that can be traced as early as 1905. Given this fact, I am somewhat skeptical of the validity of "borrowing” any construction of § 2113(d) based on its legislative history. In addition, I note that the legislative history McLaughlin relied upon is not a committee report but rather a brief colloquy among members of the House during the floor debate, a form of legislative history that has fallen into disfavor for purposes of statutory construction. Conroy v. Aniskoff, - U.S. -, - n. 2, 113 S.Ct. 1562, 1568 n. 2, 123 L.Ed.2d 229, 239 n. 2 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); Coalition for Clean Air v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 971 F.2d 219, 227 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1361, 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993); International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 717 (D.C.Cir.1987) (Buckley, J., concurring). Whatever the value of such remarks in construing the meaning of the bill being discussed, it is all the less valuable in shedding light onto the meaning of other legislation not being considered in the debate.

. The plurality does not rely on McLaughlin's third justification, that an unloaded gun can be used as a bludgeon. Given the unwieldy group of items here, including batteries, wires, lip balm, and lighters, I agree that that justification is inapplicable.

. "[T|he meanings of words depends on their context.” Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 488 U.S. 19, 25, 109 S.Ct. 278, 281, 102 L.Ed.2d 186 (1988). As Learned Hand stated:
Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition; they have only a communal existence; and not only does the meaning of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take their purport from the setting in which they are used.
NLRB v. Federbush Co., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (2d Cir.1941).

. As stated in Part I, supra, I believe that the language of the statute is sufficiently clear that the exercise in borrowing that the plurality undertakes is unnecessary. Even if the statute is sufficiently unclear to justify this borrowing, however, the plurality opinion's approach does nothing to limit this lack of clarity, and the rule of lenity properly should be applied in this instance. That rule, which applies to "any criminal statute, including a sentencing provision,” United States v. Hall, 972 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir.1992), is reserved for those situations in which "a reasonable doubt persists about a statute’s intended scope even after resort to the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies of the statute.” Moskal, 498 U.S. at 108, 111 S.Ct. at 465 (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted). It is designed to "ensure both that there is fair warning of the boundaries *898of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability.” Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158, 110 S.Ct. 997, 1002, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990). Because neither the statute, nor the plurality’s opinion today, provides sufficient fair warning as to the boundaries of the criminal conduct encompassed under § 111(b) in these types of cases, I believe that the rule of lenity properly should be applied in this instance.

. The plurality opinion marshals an impressive amount of authority in support of its position. In the end, however, none of it is helpful in resolving the particular question that this case poses. Of the authority the plurality cites, two categories of cases emerge. The first group is cited as supporting the idea that even an inoperable bomb can be considered dangerous because it instills fear. But every case cited, see note 9 of the plurality opinion supra and accompanying text, involves a gun, not a bomb. Gun scenarios, which by their very nature require the presence of the wrongdoer on the scene, do not assist in understanding whether an incomplete bomb mailed from a jail is a dangerous weapon. The second group is cited as supporting the proposition that every circuit court dealing with a fake weapon or with no weapon at all, but rather the assertion that a weapon was present, have reached the same result as the plurality. But almost every case cited, see note 10 supra of the plurality opinion and accompanying text, deals with a case involving a bank robbery under § 2113(d). Again, in those cases the presence of the wrongdoer is a necessary factual element and the brandish of a gun or other weapon results in an environment of danger to those present because of the chance for an immediate and violent response very different than that involved in the mailing of an incomplete bomb to a government office. While all these cases would help in determining whether a bomb or pseudo-bomb falls within the “dangerous weapon or device” language of the bank robbery statute, or whether an actual, operable gun or bomb fall within the "deadly or dangerous weapon” language of the assault statute, they simply do not advance our understanding of what Congress intended in the instant circumstances.