In the Supreme Court of the United States In the Supreme Court of ...

sawed-off shotgun or bomb, is a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2006). Although known for their
destructive capabilities, explosives have lawful purposes, while sawed-off shotguns do not.
Fortes, 141 F.3d at 7 (Congress found § 5845 weapons “lacking in lawful purposes”).
Therefore, possession of a sawed-off shotgun is more similar to the use of an explosive in kind,
than it is to possession of explosives. Further, the lower courts likely read too much into the
phrase “involves the use of.” See, e.g., R. at 10. Congress was in the process of passing new
legislation regarding explosives and used the phrase to incorporate “various explosives
offenses” because they did not “have a single generic term to cover them.” See House Hearing at
15. As the hearing suggests, Congress intended the phrase to include explosive offenses broadly.
Id.
For these reasons, this Court should hold that the possession of an unregistered sawed-
off shotgun poses the same kind of risk as the enumerated offenses. This Court should further
hold that the possession of a sawed-off shotgun is a violent felony under the ACCA because it
involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to others that is similar
in degree, and in kind, to the enumerated offenses.
C. Even if this Court were to require “purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct,”
the possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun would still qualify as a violent
felony.
In Begay, this Court stated that a DUI was not a violent felony because it did not
“typically involve” purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct. 553 U.S. at 144–45. This
analysis requires a court to look at the conduct of all violations of a particular offense, in the
aggregate, to determine whether purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct is typically present.
See Chambers, 555 U.S. at 129 (using statistical analysis to determine the frequency of
violence).
27