Petitioners
Frank J. Muscarello, Donald Cleveland and Enrique Gray-Santana
Respondent
United States
Petitioners' Claim
That the United States violated the Second Amendment's right to bear arms bya broad interpretation of U.S. legal codes.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
Robert H. Klonoff and Norman S. Zallkind
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James A. Feldman
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer (writing for the Court), Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter
Place
Washington D.C.
Date of Decision
8 June 1998
Decision
The decision found in favor of the United States by ruling that the phrase "carries a firearm" applies to persons knowingly possessing and conveying firearms in a vehicle, including in a locked glove compartment or car trunk.
Significance
The decision was a rare ruling addressing Second Amendment Right to Bear ArmsClause. By affirming the courts' broad interpretation of firearms restrictions in two criminal cases, the Court strengthened the effectiveness of law enforcement in drug offenses. By the end of the 1990s, local and state governments were forming a united effort in passing more gun-control legislation and addressing the liability of firearms manufacturers and distributors in courts.
Despite extensive debate and legislative action regarding the regulation of firearm use since 1934, little has been resolved concerning the actual meaningof the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right ofthe people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Some claimed the amendment protects individual rights to possess and transport guns. Others insisted it protected states' authority to maintain militia units which became the National Guard in later years. The Court in United States v. Miller(1939) ruled the amendment protected individuals, but only in the context ofmaintaining a militia capability for the state. The Court ruled in Miller that restrictions on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because they are not the normal type of weapon a militia would need to be effective. The Court found no individual right to bear arms.
By the 1990s according to Department of Justice records over 40 percent of Americans had guns in their homes. Also, over 20,000 federal, state, and locallaws regulating firearms were passed under police and commerce governmental powers. Passage of the 1993 Brady Act and 1994 assault weapons ban added further fuel to an already fierce debate over gun control. Then in a stunning reversal from earlier interpretations of broad federal powers under the CommerceClause of the Constitution, the Court struck down a firearms-related law in United States v. Lopez (1995). For similar concerns over the limitationof federal authority, the Court next struck down key provisions of the BradyAct in Printz v. United States (1997).
Drugs and Guns
Through the years, Congress created a variable penalty with no set minimum sentence for persons who "transport," or "ship" or "receive," a firearm even when knowing it was to be used to commit a crime. However, a five year mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed upon individuals who "carry" a firearm "during and in relation to" a "drug trafficking crime." The mandatory sentence was intended to apply to anyone bringing a weapon with them, either actually on them or in their car, to the site of a drug sale.
Frank J. Muscarello, unlawfully sold marijuana, which he carried in his truckto the place of sale. Police officers found a handgun locked in the truck'sglove compartment. During plea proceedings, Muscarello admitted that he had "carried" the gun "for protection in relation" to the drug offense. Later, heclaimed to the contrary, adding that, in any event, his "carrying" of the gunin the glove compartment did not fall within the scope of the word "carries"in the legal codes.
In a separate incident, Donald Cleveland and Enrique Gray-Santana traveled bycar to a proposed drug-sale with several guns placed in a bag in the vehicletrunk. Their intent was to steal drugs from the sellers. Federal agents stopped them and in searching the car found the guns and drugs. They were placedunder arrest.
All three individuals were later convicted of having "carried" guns as part of committing a drug trafficking offenses and sentenced to prison under the mandatory firearms sentence. In both cases an appeals courts reaffirmed the convictions. Both cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court pursuing the question as to whether the phrase "carries a firearm" applied only to the carrying of firearms on the person or if it also applied to individuals knowingly possessing and conveying firearms in a glove compartment or vehicle trunk. TheCourt combined the two cases, Cleveland v. Unites States with Muscarello , for consideration. The Court granted certiorari to determine if guns found in locked glove compartments or car trunks should not be considered under the mandatory sentencing or protected under the Second Amendment.
To Carry a Firearm
Muscarello argued the definition adopted by the courts blurred the legal distinction between the terms "carry" and "transport." The latter word was used prevalently elsewhere in "firearms" related legislation and federal regulations. He argued the Court's interpretation of the law would apply as well to passengers on buses, trains, or ships, who stored firearms in checked luggage. Muscarello claimed the law was ambiguous and should not be enforced.
By a narrow majority vote of 5-4, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings in the First and Fifth Circuits. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, wrote that the phrase "carries a firearm" applied to persons knowingly possessing and conveying firearms in a vehicle, including locked compartments of the car. Breyer found many of Muscarello's arguments unconvincing.
Breyer examined the ordinary English meaning of the phrase "carries a firearm." The parties to the case essentially agreed that Congress intended the ordinary meaning of the phrase. Though the word "carry" may have many different meanings, only two were found relevant in this decision. The primary meaning of "carry firearms" is that a person can carry a firearm in a wagon, car, truck, or other vehicle. Breyer noted the modern press, novels and newspapers commonly used "carry" in this way. Breyer wrote that though these examples do not relate directly to carrying guns, nothing is unique distinguishing weaponsfrom other materials.
When the word carry was used to mean "bearing" or "packing," Breyer found themeaning was less clear. "Packing" a gun could apply, even if a person "carrying" the gun was stationary. However, Breyer found no reason to think that Congress intended to limit the word to this narrow meaning. Breyer wrote, "It is difficult to believe, however, that Congress intended to limit the statutory word to this definition imposing special punishment upon the comatose gangster while ignoring drug lords who drive to a sale carrying an arsenal of weapons in their van." It made no sense for a statute to penalize a person who walked with a gun in a bag to the site of a drug sale, but ignored an individual who drove to the same site with a gun in a bag in the car. Breyer asked "How persuasive is a punishment that is without effect until a drug dealer who has brought his gun to a sale (indeed has it available for use) actually takesit from the trunk (or unlocks the glove compartment) of his car?" Breyer found it difficult to hold that those who were prepared to sell drugs by placingguns in their cars were less dangerous, or less deserving of punishment, than those who carried handguns on their person.
Breyer concluded Congress intended the former, more common use of the word. Breyer found it not surprising that the federal circuit courts relied consistently on this common meaning of "carry" and not to the more limited interpretation.
Muscarello argued that the Court's broad interpretation of carry confused theterm with transport. However, Breyer responded "that our definition does notequate carry and transport. Carry implies personal agency and some degree ofpossession, whereas transport does not have such a limited connotation and,in addition, implies the movement of goods in bulk over great distances." Therefore, "transport" was a broad category that included "carry" as well as other activities. Breyer found no violation of the person's right to "bear" arms.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was joined by William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "carries." Ginsburg argued the phrase "carrying a firearm" literally meant to bear a weapon in a manner ready for use. Carry commonly implied various meanings, but the meaning embraced by the Court she did not consider areliable indicator of what Congress intended by "carries a firearm." She alsonoted discrepancies between the more general federal sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimum sentence under the drug crime law. In Muscarello's case, the general guidelines recommended a 16 month maximum sentence, dramatically less than the five year minimum sentence. A significant difference whenthe Court was so divided over the intent of the more stringent code.
Impact
The Court's broad interpretation of a federal law applying a five year mandatory prison sentence to anyone who carries a firearm while trafficking in illegal drugs was welcomed by law enforcement. Public concern over the availability and use of firearms in American society continued following the Muscarello decision. Approximately 4 million firearms continued to be sold annually in the nation. Handguns were shown to be a key factor in the rise of violent juvenile crime, even while the overall crime rates declined. New tough measures to confiscate guns and put offenders behind bars who used guns seemedto make a difference in public safety.
By the end of 1998 following court successes against the tobacco industry, many local and state governments began to unite in a campaign to make gun manufacturers and distributors more accountable for the social and financial coststhat guns pose. New restrictions were sought on the production and marketingof firearms through the pressing of product liability and public nuisance charges. Actions by the state and local governments rather than Congress avoided issues over limitations of federal power over gun control that 1990s Courtrulings were establishing.
Related Cases
The National Firearms Act
On 15 February 1933, Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, scheduled to be sworn inas President of the United States on March 4, was speaking at Bay Front Parkin Miami when an assassin fired five shots at the bandstand. Police wrestledthe would-be assassin, Giuseppe Zingara, to the ground, and later found in his pocket a newspaper clipping regarding the assassination of President William McKinley thirty-two years before. "I'd kill every president," he later told police. But instead of killing the president-elect, his shots fatally wounded Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.
The incident, along with widespread fears concerning the spread of gangland violence at the behest of Al Capone at others, led Congress to pass one of thenation's first significant pieces of gun-control legislation. This was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which placed taxes on--and therefore required the registration of--machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and rifles.
A generation after the 1934 National Firearms Act, in 1968, assassination again led to the passage of a gun-control act. In that year, assassins shot andkilled civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and presidential candidateSenator Robert F. Kennedy. As a result, Congress passed the Gun Control Actof 1968.
Sources
Bacon, Donald C., et al., ed. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Frank J. Muscarello, Donald Cleveland and Enrique Gray-Santana
Respondent
United States
Petitioners' Claim
That the United States violated the Second Amendment's right to bear arms bya broad interpretation of U.S. legal codes.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
Robert H. Klonoff and Norman S. Zallkind
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
James A. Feldman
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer (writing for the Court), Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter
Place
Washington D.C.
Date of Decision
8 June 1998
Decision
The decision found in favor of the United States by ruling that the phrase "carries a firearm" applies to persons knowingly possessing and conveying firearms in a vehicle, including in a locked glove compartment or car trunk.
Significance
The decision was a rare ruling addressing Second Amendment Right to Bear ArmsClause. By affirming the courts' broad interpretation of firearms restrictions in two criminal cases, the Court strengthened the effectiveness of law enforcement in drug offenses. By the end of the 1990s, local and state governments were forming a united effort in passing more gun-control legislation and addressing the liability of firearms manufacturers and distributors in courts.
Despite extensive debate and legislative action regarding the regulation of firearm use since 1934, little has been resolved concerning the actual meaningof the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right ofthe people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Some claimed the amendment protects individual rights to possess and transport guns. Others insisted it protected states' authority to maintain militia units which became the National Guard in later years. The Court in United States v. Miller(1939) ruled the amendment protected individuals, but only in the context ofmaintaining a militia capability for the state. The Court ruled in Miller that restrictions on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because they are not the normal type of weapon a militia would need to be effective. The Court found no individual right to bear arms.
By the 1990s according to Department of Justice records over 40 percent of Americans had guns in their homes. Also, over 20,000 federal, state, and locallaws regulating firearms were passed under police and commerce governmental powers. Passage of the 1993 Brady Act and 1994 assault weapons ban added further fuel to an already fierce debate over gun control. Then in a stunning reversal from earlier interpretations of broad federal powers under the CommerceClause of the Constitution, the Court struck down a firearms-related law in United States v. Lopez (1995). For similar concerns over the limitationof federal authority, the Court next struck down key provisions of the BradyAct in Printz v. United States (1997).
Drugs and Guns
Through the years, Congress created a variable penalty with no set minimum sentence for persons who "transport," or "ship" or "receive," a firearm even when knowing it was to be used to commit a crime. However, a five year mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed upon individuals who "carry" a firearm "during and in relation to" a "drug trafficking crime." The mandatory sentence was intended to apply to anyone bringing a weapon with them, either actually on them or in their car, to the site of a drug sale.
Frank J. Muscarello, unlawfully sold marijuana, which he carried in his truckto the place of sale. Police officers found a handgun locked in the truck'sglove compartment. During plea proceedings, Muscarello admitted that he had "carried" the gun "for protection in relation" to the drug offense. Later, heclaimed to the contrary, adding that, in any event, his "carrying" of the gunin the glove compartment did not fall within the scope of the word "carries"in the legal codes.
In a separate incident, Donald Cleveland and Enrique Gray-Santana traveled bycar to a proposed drug-sale with several guns placed in a bag in the vehicletrunk. Their intent was to steal drugs from the sellers. Federal agents stopped them and in searching the car found the guns and drugs. They were placedunder arrest.
All three individuals were later convicted of having "carried" guns as part of committing a drug trafficking offenses and sentenced to prison under the mandatory firearms sentence. In both cases an appeals courts reaffirmed the convictions. Both cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court pursuing the question as to whether the phrase "carries a firearm" applied only to the carrying of firearms on the person or if it also applied to individuals knowingly possessing and conveying firearms in a glove compartment or vehicle trunk. TheCourt combined the two cases, Cleveland v. Unites States with Muscarello , for consideration. The Court granted certiorari to determine if guns found in locked glove compartments or car trunks should not be considered under the mandatory sentencing or protected under the Second Amendment.
To Carry a Firearm
Muscarello argued the definition adopted by the courts blurred the legal distinction between the terms "carry" and "transport." The latter word was used prevalently elsewhere in "firearms" related legislation and federal regulations. He argued the Court's interpretation of the law would apply as well to passengers on buses, trains, or ships, who stored firearms in checked luggage. Muscarello claimed the law was ambiguous and should not be enforced.
By a narrow majority vote of 5-4, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings in the First and Fifth Circuits. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, wrote that the phrase "carries a firearm" applied to persons knowingly possessing and conveying firearms in a vehicle, including locked compartments of the car. Breyer found many of Muscarello's arguments unconvincing.
Breyer examined the ordinary English meaning of the phrase "carries a firearm." The parties to the case essentially agreed that Congress intended the ordinary meaning of the phrase. Though the word "carry" may have many different meanings, only two were found relevant in this decision. The primary meaning of "carry firearms" is that a person can carry a firearm in a wagon, car, truck, or other vehicle. Breyer noted the modern press, novels and newspapers commonly used "carry" in this way. Breyer wrote that though these examples do not relate directly to carrying guns, nothing is unique distinguishing weaponsfrom other materials.
When the word carry was used to mean "bearing" or "packing," Breyer found themeaning was less clear. "Packing" a gun could apply, even if a person "carrying" the gun was stationary. However, Breyer found no reason to think that Congress intended to limit the word to this narrow meaning. Breyer wrote, "It is difficult to believe, however, that Congress intended to limit the statutory word to this definition imposing special punishment upon the comatose gangster while ignoring drug lords who drive to a sale carrying an arsenal of weapons in their van." It made no sense for a statute to penalize a person who walked with a gun in a bag to the site of a drug sale, but ignored an individual who drove to the same site with a gun in a bag in the car. Breyer asked "How persuasive is a punishment that is without effect until a drug dealer who has brought his gun to a sale (indeed has it available for use) actually takesit from the trunk (or unlocks the glove compartment) of his car?" Breyer found it difficult to hold that those who were prepared to sell drugs by placingguns in their cars were less dangerous, or less deserving of punishment, than those who carried handguns on their person.
Breyer concluded Congress intended the former, more common use of the word. Breyer found it not surprising that the federal circuit courts relied consistently on this common meaning of "carry" and not to the more limited interpretation.
Muscarello argued that the Court's broad interpretation of carry confused theterm with transport. However, Breyer responded "that our definition does notequate carry and transport. Carry implies personal agency and some degree ofpossession, whereas transport does not have such a limited connotation and,in addition, implies the movement of goods in bulk over great distances." Therefore, "transport" was a broad category that included "carry" as well as other activities. Breyer found no violation of the person's right to "bear" arms.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was joined by William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "carries." Ginsburg argued the phrase "carrying a firearm" literally meant to bear a weapon in a manner ready for use. Carry commonly implied various meanings, but the meaning embraced by the Court she did not consider areliable indicator of what Congress intended by "carries a firearm." She alsonoted discrepancies between the more general federal sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimum sentence under the drug crime law. In Muscarello's case, the general guidelines recommended a 16 month maximum sentence, dramatically less than the five year minimum sentence. A significant difference whenthe Court was so divided over the intent of the more stringent code.
Impact
The Court's broad interpretation of a federal law applying a five year mandatory prison sentence to anyone who carries a firearm while trafficking in illegal drugs was welcomed by law enforcement. Public concern over the availability and use of firearms in American society continued following the Muscarello decision. Approximately 4 million firearms continued to be sold annually in the nation. Handguns were shown to be a key factor in the rise of violent juvenile crime, even while the overall crime rates declined. New tough measures to confiscate guns and put offenders behind bars who used guns seemedto make a difference in public safety.
By the end of 1998 following court successes against the tobacco industry, many local and state governments began to unite in a campaign to make gun manufacturers and distributors more accountable for the social and financial coststhat guns pose. New restrictions were sought on the production and marketingof firearms through the pressing of product liability and public nuisance charges. Actions by the state and local governments rather than Congress avoided issues over limitations of federal power over gun control that 1990s Courtrulings were establishing.
Related Cases
- United States v. Miller, 301 U.S. 174 (1939).
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1996).
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997).
- Cleveland v. United States, 106 F.3d 1056 (1998).
The National Firearms Act
On 15 February 1933, Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, scheduled to be sworn inas President of the United States on March 4, was speaking at Bay Front Parkin Miami when an assassin fired five shots at the bandstand. Police wrestledthe would-be assassin, Giuseppe Zingara, to the ground, and later found in his pocket a newspaper clipping regarding the assassination of President William McKinley thirty-two years before. "I'd kill every president," he later told police. But instead of killing the president-elect, his shots fatally wounded Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.
The incident, along with widespread fears concerning the spread of gangland violence at the behest of Al Capone at others, led Congress to pass one of thenation's first significant pieces of gun-control legislation. This was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which placed taxes on--and therefore required the registration of--machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and rifles.
A generation after the 1934 National Firearms Act, in 1968, assassination again led to the passage of a gun-control act. In that year, assassins shot andkilled civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and presidential candidateSenator Robert F. Kennedy. As a result, Congress passed the Gun Control Actof 1968.
Sources
Bacon, Donald C., et al., ed. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…