Source: cases/18usc924/us-524-125-muscarello-v-us.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_524/0125_01/index.html
it also applies to a person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle, including in the locked glove compartment or trunk of a car, which the person accompanies.
That interpretation, however, is difficult to square with the statute’s language, for one “carries” a gun in the glove compartment whether or not that glove compartment is locked.
For these reasons, we conclude that petitioners’ conduct falls within the scope of the phrase “carries a firearm.”
In sum, the “generally accepted contemporary meaning” of the word “carry” includes the carrying of a firearm in a vehicle.
“Carry” implies personal agency and some degree of possession, whereas “transport” does not have such a limited connotation and, in addition, implies the movement of goods in bulk over great distances.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the fact that the guns were found in the locked glove compartment, or the trunk, of a ear precludes application of § 924(c)(1). We conclude that it does not.
I would read the words to indicate not merely keeping arms on one’s premises or in one’s vehicle, but bearing them in such manner as to be ready for use as a weapon.
So reading the “Firearms” statutes, I would not extend the word “carries” in § 924(c)(1) to mean transports out of hand’s reach in a vehicle.
Congress added these words in part to prevent prosecution where guns “played” no part in the crime.
The limiting phrase “during and in relation to” should prevent misuse of the statute to penalize those whose conduct does not create the risks of harm at which the statute aims.
casedsl 1 case /us/524/0125-01 name Muscarello v. United States cite 524 U.S. 125 (1998) court Supreme Court of the United States date 1998-06-08 url catalog/cases/us/volume_524/0125_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_524.jsonl sha1=55292709f94aac318573321af441f9159c8b8101 chars=50369 law 18usc924 (c)(1) role applied posture criminal; two consolidated cases (Muscarello, CA5, guilty plea; Cleveland and Gray-Santana, CA1) in which the courts of appeals upheld "carry" convictions for guns in a locked glove compartment / car trunk; certiorari on whether "carries" is limited to carrying on the person; affirmed 5-4 result claimant-won element carry : satisfied [law] party Muscarello variant vehicle/conveyance fact @699..828 [supports] | Petitioner in the first case, Frank J. Muscarello, unlawfully sold marijuana, which he carried in his truck to the place of sale. fact @829..901 [supports] | Police officers found a handgun locked in the truck’s glove compartment. rule @444..621 | it also applies to a person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle, including in the locked glove compartment or trunk of a car, which the person accompanies. rule @23243..23422 | That interpretation, however, is difficult to square with the statute’s language, for one “carries” a gun in the glove compartment whether or not that glove compartment is locked. held @25415..25529 | For these reasons, we conclude that petitioners’ conduct falls within the scope of the phrase “carries a firearm.” gloss Facts undisputed (plea); the only question was legal: whether a handgun locked in the glove compartment of the truck he drove to the sale is "carried". Held yes; neither "on the person" nor "immediately accessible" is required. element carry : satisfied [law] party Cleveland and Gray-Santana variant vehicle/conveyance fact @1289..1537 [supports] | Petitioners in the second case, Donald Cleveland and Enrique Gray-Santana, placed several guns in a bag, put the bag in the trunk of a ear, and then traveled by ear to a proposed drug-sale point, where they intended to steal drugs from the sellers. fact @1538..1643 [supports] | Federal agents at the scene stopped them, searched the ears, found the guns and drugs, and arrested them. rule @25038..25160 | In sum, the “generally accepted contemporary meaning” of the word “carry” includes the carrying of a firearm in a vehicle. rule @15735..15936 | “Carry” implies personal agency and some degree of possession, whereas “transport” does not have such a limited connotation and, in addition, implies the movement of goods in bulk over great distances. held @1846..2046 | We granted certiorari to determine whether the fact that the guns were found in the locked glove compartment, or the trunk, of a ear precludes application of § 924(c)(1). We conclude that it does not. gloss Guns in a bag in the trunk of the car the defendants rode to the planned drug rip-off. The court-of-appeals holdings that they "carried" are affirmed on the legal question; the opinion does not say whether the convictions rested on a verdict or a plea. element carry : not-satisfied [law] scope dissent opinion Ginsburg, J., dissenting (joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia and Souter, JJ.) variant vehicle/conveyance rule @27295..27460 | I would read the words to indicate not merely keeping arms on one’s premises or in one’s vehicle, but bearing them in such manner as to be ready for use as a weapon. held @36864..37005 | So reading the “Firearms” statutes, I would not extend the word “carries” in § 924(c)(1) to mean transports out of hand’s reach in a vehicle. gloss Dissent: "carries a firearm" means bearing on or about the person, ready for use; rule of lenity. Would reverse both judgments. element during-relation : not-reached role rule-announced fact @902..1025 [supports] | During plea proceedings, Muscarello admitted that he had “carried” the gun “for protection in relation” to the drug offense rule @21384..21483 | Congress added these words in part to prevent prosecution where guns “played” no part in the crime. rule @25237..25414 | The limiting phrase “during and in relation to” should prevent misuse of the statute to penalize those whose conduct does not create the risks of harm at which the statute aims. gloss The Court relies on this element as the limit on its broad reading of "carry" (answering the checked-luggage hypothetical) but does not review whether it was met; the courts of appeals had found it, and Muscarello had admitted it at his plea before recanting. misfit Basis is uncertain between [law], [conceded] and [proved]: the conduct was undisputed and the Court decided only the meaning of "carries", then affirmed. [law] is used for both parties; the opinion does not state how Cleveland and Gray-Santana were convicted (known misfit 5: one basis per block). misfit The key fact is double-edged and gets one tag: "locked in the glove compartment" / "in the trunk" is both the conveyance that satisfies "carry" and the inaccessibility on which petitioners and the dissent relied. Tagged [supports] because under the Court's rule accessibility is irrelevant; no cuts-against fact is recorded although the whole dispute is about that fact (known misfit 6). misfit The holding is chiefly a "not required" ruling (on-the-person carriage and immediate accessibility are not required); expressible only through the .law file's not-required line, a `rule` quote and gloss (known misfit 2). misfit The Court makes one element (during-relation) do the limiting work for another (carry); that inter-element relation is prose only (known misfit 3).