AND · 18usc924:use
Bailey predates the 1998 possession amendment. Its active-employment rule still defines use; it does not immunize possession in furtherance. Watson decides use only and expressly leaves the possession theory open.
Exact element source
uses or carries a firearmSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec924; Unicode character offsets [4633:4658] (end exclusive); SHA-256 899fad466e76614e7f7b0bb794089010ef0af034312bcd194c76394228dbfdc4.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Phipps — 319 F.3d 177 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| active-employment provisional; 5 observed cases | Whether the firearm was actively employed (brandished, displayed, fired, bartered), as opposed to merely possessed, stored or accessible (Bailey). | 5 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 3; excluded context 2 | 4 | United States v. Ocampo — 890 F.2d 1363 (1989) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Holland — 116 F.3d 1353 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not · no-evidence (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Phipps — 319 F.3d 177 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003 — satisfied · conceded (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted Dean v. United States — 556 U.S. 568 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/lower-court · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Ocampo — 890 F.2d 1363 (1989) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (c)(1); party: Ocampo (passenger); subject: party=Ocampo (passenger) CAVEAT: dated authority. This is pre-Bailey "use": possession that emboldens or protects counts as use even though the gun was never displayed. Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), later required active employment and rejected the possession-facilitates test this block applies; on these facts the use holding would not survive (the carry holding would). A true 1989 instance, not good law for `use`. The second fact line is the court's statement of the permissible inference, not a primary fact. | possession-as-facilitation/loaded-gun-within-reach-in-drug-vehicle | They executed the warrants and found 5,000 grams of cocaine in Apartment 3-D and 4,998 grams of cocaine in the Datsun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [6589:6707] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.Given the value of the cocaine and the known risks of conducting an illegal drug business, the jury could reasonably infer from all of the evidence that Ocampo possessed a loaded revolver in order to protect himself, his partner, and his cocaine shipment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [21820:22075] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.While Ocampo never displayed or fired the weapon during the encounterSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [21141:21210] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe."Using" a weapon under § 924(c)(1) includes the possession of a firearm which in any manner facilitates the execution of a felony.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [21627:21757] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.If the firearm is within the possession or control of a person who commits an underlying crime as defined by the statute, and the circumstances of the case show that the firearm facilitated or had a role in the crime, such as emboldening an actor who had the opportunity or ability to display or discharge the weapon to protect himself or to intimidate others, whether or not such a display or discharge in fact occurred, then there is a violation of the statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [22574:23037] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.There was also ample evidence to support a finding that Ocampo "used" the weapon during the commission of the felony.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [21509:21626] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.Furthermore, the jury surely was entitled to find that the presence of a loaded revolver so close at hand provided Ocampo with the security and confidence necessary to undertake such a large drug transaction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [22137:22345] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe. |
| United States v. Holland — 116 F.3d 1353 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not · no-evidence (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (c)(1); party: Holland (driver and owner of the car); subject: party=Holland (driver and owner of the car) The court declares the trial evidence insufficient for "use" after Bailey (a gun stored under the seat is not active employment), and the trial instruction on use incorrect. The conviction nonetheless stands on the carry prong, so this is an insufficiency ruling on one prong without a reversal. Kept `merits` although the posture is section 2255: this is the court's own application of the Bailey test to the trial evidence (the premise of the prejudice inquiry), not an inference from what the jury must have found. | accessibility-without-active-employment/gun-under-seat-of-drug-vehicle | revealed a revolver registered to Mr. Kelly under the passenger seat plus drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cocaine found elsewhere in the vehicleSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [1180:1333] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.police officers observed five rounds of ammunition on the vehicle’s center consoleSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [1026:1108] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.In Bailey, the Supreme Court rejected such a broad definition of “use” and held that section 924(c)(1) “requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [2639:2921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.The Court also made clear that “use” does not extend to situations “where an offender conceals a gun nearby to be at the ready for an imminent confrontation.... Placement for later active use does not constitute ‘use.’”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [3231:3450] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.It is clear that under the construction of “use” employed in Bailey, the evidence in this case is legally insufficient to support a conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense under section 924(c)(1).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [3481:3721] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8. |
| United States v. Phipps — 319 F.3d 177 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural claim: (c)(1); party: Phipps and Gilley; count: the second 924(c)(1) count (count 3 or count 5, at the government's election); theory: unit of prosecution / multiplicity: single use of a single firearm during two predicate offenses; rule of lenity; subject: party=Phipps and Gilley; count=the second 924(c)(1) count (count 3 or count 5, at the government's election); theory=unit of prosecution / multiplicity: single use of a single firearm during two predicate offenses; rule of lenity NOT a ruling on the `use` element (use is satisfied once: see the block above). The real ruling is UNIT OF PROSECUTION / MULTIPLICITY, an offense-level question of statutory construction decided under the rule of lenity: the unit of prosecution is the use (carriage, possession) of the firearm, so 924(c)(1) does not authorize two convictions for a single use of a single firearm that served two predicate offenses. The fact polarities are relative to that multiplicity question (toward / against a second conviction), not to whether the gun was used. Consequence: one use yields one 924(c)(1) conviction even when it furthers two distinct crimes of violence, so one of the two counts must be dismissed and all sentences redone. Expressly limited to the facts: had the defendants kept the gun and used it again, or had there been several guns, two convictions might stand. The constitutional (double jeopardy) version of the argument is rejected under circuit precedent because kidnaping and carjacking have different elements. | unit-of-prosecution/single-use-single-gun-two-predicates | In what surely must be a rare event, defendants used a single firearm a single time for a dual criminal purpose, then immediately discarded it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [24929:25072] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.By brandishing the firearm, they forced Pasquariel-lo to surrender her car, and they abducted her.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [18435:18533] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.We conclude that the unit of prosecution is the use, carriage, or possession of a firearm during and in relation to a predicate offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [12525:12661] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.Given the unit of prosecution, this language allows for only as many counts as there are uses of the firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [18154:18263] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.In light of this extraordinary fact, § 924(c)(1) does not unambiguously authorize multiple convictions for a single use of a single firearm based on multiple predicate offenses.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [25073:25250] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545. |
| United States v. Phipps — 319 F.3d 177 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003 — satisfied · conceded (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (c)(1); party: Phipps and Gilley; count: the single use underlying counts 3 and 5; subject: party=Phipps and Gilley; count=the single use underlying counts 3 and 5 That the gun was actively employed (put to the victim's head) is undisputed; what the court decides is the NUMBER of uses: one. The cuts-against lines are the facts that ended the use (gun handed to the accomplice at once; later threats were with a knife), i.e. they cut against any second or continuing use, not against the first. | active/weapon | As Pasquariel-lo pulled into her carport, defendants approached her, Phipps put a gun to her head, Gilley restrained her in the back seat of her car, and they drove away with Phipps at the wheel.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [624:819] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.They stopped briefly to give the gun to Medina, then headed for the highway.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [820:896] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.During and after the rape, Gilley continuously threatened Pasquariello with a knife as Phipps drove through the night.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [1003:1121] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.From this point forward, we speak only of use, not of carriage or possession, because defendants undoubtedly used the firearm during their crimes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [43542:43688] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.Defendants “used” the firearm only once, namely, when Phipps put the firearm to Pasquariello’s head.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [18264:18364] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not · no-evidence (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (c)(1); party: Robinson; subject: party=Robinson Sufficiency reversed (same deciding sentence as the Bailey block: "the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey's or Robinson's conviction"). Gun stored with the drugs and buy money in the room the drugs were sold from, but never disclosed or mentioned during the controlled buys. | storage/unloaded-gun-locked-in-closet-trunk-with-drugs | Inside a locked trunk in the bedroom closet, the police found, among other things, an unloaded, holstered .22-caliber Derringer, papers and a tax return belonging to Robinson, 10.88 grams of crack cocaine, and a marked $20 bill from the first controlled buy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [2728:2986] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.The officer observed Robinson retrieve the drugs from the bedroom of her one-bedroom apartment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [2546:2641] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.In Robinson’s case, the unloaded, holstered firearm that provided the basis for her § 924(c)(1) conviction was found locked in a footlocker in a bedroom closet.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24672:24832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.No evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24833:24900] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not “used.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [22018:22126] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.Placement for later active use does not constitute “use.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [22411:22468] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.We reverse both judgments.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24901:24927] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not · no-evidence (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (c)(1); party: Bailey; subject: party=Bailey Sufficiency reversed. A loaded pistol with cash in the trunk, drugs in the passenger compartment and generic expert testimony show at most possession near drugs; nothing showed the gun was displayed, mentioned or otherwise employed. The "supports" facts are what the court below relied on under its rejected proximity/accessibility test. | storage/gun-in-bag-in-locked-car-trunk | A search of the passenger compartment revealed oné round of ammunition and 27 plastic bags containing a total of 30 grams of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [958:1091] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.After arresting Bailey, the officers searched the trunk of his car where they found, among a number of items, a large amount of cash and a bag containing a loaded 9-mm. pistol.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [1092:1268] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.A prosecution expert testified at trial that drug dealers frequently carry a firearm to protect their drugs and money as well as themselves.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [1387:1527] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.The police then found a firearm inside a bag in the locked car trunk.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24526:24595] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.There was no evidence that Bailey actively employed the firearm in any way.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24596:24671] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.We agree with petitioners, and hold that § 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [8748:8978] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [21327:21431] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.Having determined that “use” denotes active employment, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey’s or Robinson’s conviction for “use” under § 924(c)(1).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24210:24398] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1); theory: illustrative catalogue of what does count as active employment (dicta); subject: theory=illustrative catalogue of what does count as active employment (dicta) Not applied to either defendant; the Court lists conduct that would be "use" to bound its holding. Barter (Smith) is reaffirmed as use. | active/weapon | The active-employment understanding of “use” certainly includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and, most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [19705:19880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.Thus, a reference to a firearm calculated to bring about a change in the circumstances of the predicate offense is a “use,” just as the silent but obvious and forceful presence of a gun on a table can be a “use.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [20022:20234] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
| Dean v. United States — 556 U.S. 568 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii) The base offense, found by the jury and not reviewed. The count charged using, carrying, possessing and discharging in one breath and the jury returned a general guilty verdict on the firearm count; the opinion does not say which conduct mode the jury found, so no `use` finding is recorded (not-reached). The facts are parked under `use` as the annotator's placement because the gun was waved at the bank's occupants. | active/weapon | In this case, a masked man entered a bank, waved a gun, and yelled at everyone to get down.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [813:904] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.At trial, Dean admitted that he had committed the robbery, id., at 76-81, and a jury found him guilty on both the robbery and firearm counts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [1813:1954] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
| Rosemond v. United States — 572 U.S. 65 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 2; theory: principal liability: Rosemond himself fired the gun; subject: theory=principal liability: Rosemond himself fired the gun The Government's primary theory. The verdict was general, the shooter's identity was disputed, and the Court declines to decide the Government's harmlessness argument that the jury must have found Rosemond fired the gun. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
We conclude that the language, context, and history of § 924(c)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm.
Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
We conclude that the language, context, and history of § 924(c)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [12290:12429] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.Bailey predates the 1998 possession amendment. Its active-employment rule still defines use; it does not immunize possession in furtherance. Watson decides use only and expressly leaves the possession theory open.
interpretation
Given ordinary meaning and the conventions of English, we hold that a person does not “use” a firearm under § 924(c)(1)(A) when he receives it in trade for drugs.
Watson v. United States — 552 U.S. 74 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 (18usc924: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
Given ordinary meaning and the conventions of English, we hold that a person does not “use” a firearm under § 924(c)(1)(A) when he receives it in trade for drugs.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_552.jsonl#/us/552/0074-01; Unicode character offsets [12492:12654] (end exclusive); SHA-256 728193ba55a5222dee7b27c3696113257607f4c90607bd00a029d36e118e75e2.Bailey predates the 1998 possession amendment. Its active-employment rule still defines use; it does not immunize possession in furtherance. Watson decides use only and expressly leaves the possession theory open.