In a victory for gun rights advocates, the Supreme Court ruled that possession of a modified shotgun is not considered a violent felony under federal law.
The court ruled 8-1 on Friday that an increased sentence for such a gun owner violates due process.
The plaintiff, Samuel Johnson, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The government sought a longer sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes an increased prison term for people with three prior convictions of a violent felony.
The federal government had argued that Johnson’s prior conviction for possessing a short-barreled shotgun was a violent felony. The government won, and a 15-year sentence was imposed for Johnson.
The justices found that the law’s residual clause was vague, especially surrounding whether the gun possession was a violent crime.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that it is hard to tell why possessing a short-barreled shotgun is a violent crime.
“When deciding whether unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun is a violent felony, do we confine our attention to the risk that the shotgun will go off by accident while in someone’s possession?” he wrote. “Or do we consider the possibility that the person possessing the shotgun will later use it to commit a crime?”
The only dissent was from Samuel Alito, who noted that the court previously rejected arguments that the part of the act called the residual clause was vague.
He said the language surrounding violent felony is “by no means incomprehensible. Nor is it unusual.”
The decision effectively reverses the sentencing and remands the case back to the lower court.
