THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 1992-1993 SMITH v. UNITED STATES 507 U.S. 197 1993 * * * SYLLABUS: SMITH v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 91-1538. Argued December 7, 1992-Decided March 8, 1993 After her husband was killed in Antarctica-a sovereignless region without civil tort law of its own-while he was working for a private firm under contract to a federal agency, petitioner filed this wrongful death action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the FTCA's foreign-country exception, which states that the statute's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to ``[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country,'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(k). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The FTCA does not apply to tortious acts or omissions occurring in Antarctica. The ordinary meaning of ``foreign country'' includes Antarctica, even though it has no recognized government. If this were not so, Sec. 1346(b)-which waives sovereign immunity for certain torts committed ``under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable . . . in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred'' (emphasis added)-would have the bizarre result of instructing courts to look to the law of a place that has no law in order to determine the United States' liability. Similarly, if Antarctica were included within the FTCA's coverage, Sec. 1402(b)-which provides that claims may be brought ``only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred''-would have the anomalous result of limiting venue to cases in which the claimant happened to reside in the United States, since no federal judicial district encompasses Antarctica. This interpretation of the FTCA accords with the canon of construction that prohibits courts from either extending or narrowing the statute's sovereign immunity waiver beyond what Congress intended, United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-118, and with the presumption against extraterritorial application of United States statutes, see, e.g., EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. ___, ___. It is unlikely that Congress, had it expressly considered the question when it passed the FTCA, would have included a desolate and extraordinarily dangerous land such as Antarctica within the statute's scope. Pp. 3-8. 953 F.2d 1116, affirmed. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SYLLABUS: SMITH v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 91-8674. Argued March 23, 1993-Decided June 1, 1993 After petitioner Smith offered to trade an automatic weapon to an undercover officer for cocaine, he was charged with numerous firearm and drug trafficking offenses. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1) requires the imposition of specified penalties if the defendant, ``during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm.'' In affirming Smith's conviction and sentence, the Court of Appeals held that Sec. 924(c)(1)'s plain language imposes no requirement that a firearm be ``use[d]'' as a weapon, but applies to any use of a gun that facilitates in any manner the commission of a drug offense. Held: A criminal who trades his firearm for drugs ``uses'' it ``during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime'' within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1). Pp. 4-17. (a) Section 924's language and structure establish that exchanging a firearm for drugs may constitute ``use'' within Sec. 924(c)(1)'s meaning. Smith's handling of his gun falls squarely within the everyday meaning and dictionary definitions of ``use.'' Had Congress intended Sec. 924(c)(1) to require proof that the defendant not only used his firearm but used it in a specific manner-as a weapon-it could have so indicated in the statute. However, Congress did not. The fact that the most familiar example of ``us[ing] . . . a firearm'' is ``use'' as a weapon does not mean that the phrase excludes all other ways in which a firearm might be used. The United States Sentencing Guidelines, even if the Court were to assume their relevance in the present context, do not support the dissent's narrow interpretation that ``to use'' a firearm can mean only to use it for its intended purposes, such as firing and brandishing, since Guidelines Manual Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2) explicitly contemplates ``othe[r] use[s]'' that are not limited to the intended purposes identified by the dissent. The dissent's approach, moreover, would exclude the use of a gun to pistol-whip a victim as the intended purpose of a gun is that it be fired or brandished, not that it be used as a bludgeon. In addition, Congress affirmatively demonstrated that it meant to include transactions like Smith's as ``us[ing] a firearm'' within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1) by employing similar language in Sec. 924(d)(1), which subjects to forfeiture any ``firearm . . . intended to be used'' in various listed offenses. Many of the listed offenses involve ``using'' the firearm not as a weapon but as an item of barter or commerce. Thus, even if Sec. 924(c)(1), as originally enacted, applied only to use of a firearm during crimes of violence, it is clear from the face of the statute that ``use'' is not presently limited to use as a weapon, but is broad enough to cover use for trade. Pp. 4-13. (b) Smith's use of his firearm was ``during and in relation to'' a drug trafficking crime. Smith does not, and cannot, deny that the alleged use occurred ``during'' such a crime. And there can be little doubt that his use was ``in relation to'' the offense. That phrase has a dictionary meaning of ``with reference to'' or ``as regards'' and, at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug crime. Thus, its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence, and it at least must facilitate or have the purpose of facilitating the drug offense. Here, the firearm was an integral part of the drug transaction, which would not have been possible without it. There is no reason why Congress would not have wanted its language to cover this situation, since the introduction of guns into drug transactions dramatically heightens the danger to society, whether the guns are used as a medium of exchange or as protection for the transactions or dealers. Pp. 13-16. (c) Smith's invocation of the rule of lenity is rejected. Imposing a narrower construction of Sec. 924(c)(1) than the one herein adopted would do violence not only to the statute's plain language and structure, but also to its purpose of addressing the heightened risk of violence and death that accompanies the introduction of firearms to drug trafficking offenses. Pp. 16-18. 957 F.2d 835, affirmed. O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, Blackmun, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Souter, JJ., joined. OPINION OF THE COURT: on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [March 8, 1993] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1346(b), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2671-2680 (1988 ed. and Supp. II), applies to tortious acts or omissions occurring in Antarctica, a sovereignless region without civil tort law of its own.[1] We hold that it does not. Petitioner Sandra Jean Smith is the widow of John Emmett Smith and the duly appointed representative of his estate. At the time of his death, Smith worked as a carpenter at McMurdo Station on Ross Island, Antarctica, for a construction company under contract to the National Science Foundation, an agency of the United States. Smith and two companions one day took a recreational hike to Castle Rock, located several miles outside of McMurdo Station. On their return, they departed from the marked route to walk across a snow field in the direction of Scott Base, a New Zealand outpost not far from McMurdo Station. After stopping for a snack, one of the three men took a step and suddenly dropped from sight. Smith followed, and he, too, disappeared. Both men had fallen into a crevasse. Despite search and rescue efforts, Smith died from exposure and internal injuries suffered as a result of the fall. Petitioner filed this wrongful death action against the United States under the FTCA in the District Court for the District of Oregon, the district where she resides. Petitioner alleged that the United States was negligent in failing to provide adequate warning of the dangers posed by crevasses in areas beyond the marked paths. It is undisputed that petitioner's claim is based exclusively on acts or omissions occurring in Antarctica. Upon the motion of the United States, the District Court dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 702 F. Supp. 1480 (1989), holding that her claim was barred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(k), the foreign-country exception. Section 2680(k) precludes the exercise of jurisdiction over "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country." The Court of Appeals affirmed, 953 F.2d 1116 (CA9 1991). It noted that the term "foreign country" admits of multiple interpretations, and thus looked to the language and structure of the FTCA as a whole to determine whether Antarctica is a "foreign country" within the meaning of the statute. Adopting the analysis and conclusion of then-Judge Scalia, see Beattie v. United States, 244 U.S. App. D. C. 70, 85-109, 756 F.2d 91, 106-130 (1984) (Scalia, J., dissenting), the Court of Appeals ruled that the FTCA does not apply to claims arising in Antarctica. To hold otherwise, the Court of Appeals stated, would render two other provisions of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1402(b), 1346(b), nonsensical. The Court of Appeals held, in the alternative, that petitioner's suit would be barred even if Antarctica were not a "foreign country" for purposes of the FTCA. Because the FTCA was a limited relinquishment of the common-law immunity of the United States, the Court of Appeals concluded that the absence of any clear congressional intent to subject the United States to liability for claims arising in Antarctica precluded petitioner's suit. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between two Courts of Appeals,[2] 504 U.S. -- (1992), and now affirm. Petitioner argues that the scope of the foreign-country exception turns on whether the United States has recognized the legitimacy of another nation's sovereign claim over the foreign land. Otherwise, she contends, the land is not a "country" for purposes of the FTCA. Petitioner points out that the United States does not recognize the validity of other nations' claims to portions of Antarctica. She asserts, moreover, that this construction of the term "foreign country" is most consistent with the purpose underlying the foreign-country exception. According to petitioner, Congress enacted the foreign-country exception in order to insulate the United States from tort liability imposed pursuant to foreign law. Because Antarctica has no law of its own, petitioner claims that conventional choice-of-law rules control and require the application of Oregon law, the law of her domicile. Thus, petitioner concludes, the rationale for the foreign-country exception would not be compromised by the exercise of jurisdiction here, since the United States would not be subject to liability under the law of a foreign nation. Petitioner's argument for governmental liability here faces significant obstacles in addition to the foreign-country exception, but we turn first to the language of that proviso. It states that the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(k). Though the FTCA offers no definition of "country," the commonsense meaning of the term undermines petitioner's attempt to equate it with "sovereign state." The first dictionary definition of "country" is simply "[a] region or tract of land." Webster's New International Dictionary 609 (2d ed. 1945). To be sure, this is not the only possible interpretation of the term, and it is therefore appropriate to examine other parts of the statute before making a final determination. But the ordinary meaning of the language itself, we think, includes Antarctica, even though it has no recognized government. Our construction of the term "foreign country" draws support from the language of Sec. 1346(b), "[t]he principal provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act." Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962). That section waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) (emphasis added). We have construed Sec. 1346(b) in determining what law should apply in actions brought under the FTCA. See Richards, supra. But by its terms the section is more than a choice-of-law provision: it delineates the scope of the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity. If Antarctica were not a "foreign country," and for that reason included within the FTCA's coverage, Sec. 1346(b) would instruct courts to look to the law of a place that has no law in order to determine the liability of the United States-surely a bizarre result.[3] Of course, if it were quite clear from the balance of the statute that governmental liability was intended for torts committed in Antarctica, then the failure of Sec. 1346(b) to specify any governing law might be treated as a statutory gap that the courts could fill by decisional law. But coupled with what seems to us the most natural interpretation of the foreign-country exception, this portion of Sec. 1346(b) reinforces the conclusion that Antarctica is excluded from the coverage of the FTCA. Section 1346(b) is not, however, the only FTCA provision that contradicts petitioner's interpretation of the foreign-country exception. The statute's venue provision, Sec. 1402(b), provides that claims under the FTCA may be brought "only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred." Because no federal judicial district encompasses Antarctica, petitioner's interpretation of the FTCA would lead to yet another anomalous result: the FTCA would establish jurisdiction for all tort claims against the United States arising in Antarctica, but no venue would exist unless the claimant happened to reside in the United States.[4] As we observed in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 710, n. 8 (1972), "Congress does not in general intend to create venue gaps, which take away with one hand what Congress has given by way of jurisdictional grant with the other." Thus, in construing the FTCA, it is "reasonable to prefer the construction that avoids leaving such a gap," ibid., especially when that construction comports with the usual meaning of a disputed term. Our decisions interpreting the FTCA contain varying statements as to how it should be construed. See, e.g., United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543, 547 (1951); Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 31 (1953); United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813 (1976); Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 853, n. 9 (1984). See also United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., -- U.S. --, -- (1992). A recent statement of this sort, and the one to which we now adhere, is found in United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-118 (1979): "We should also have in mind that the Act waives the immunity of the United States and that . . . we should not take it upon ourselves to extend the waiver beyond that which Congress intended. [Citations omitted.] Neither, however, should we assume the authority to narrow the waiver that Congress intended." Reading the foreign-country exception to the FTCA to exclude torts committed in Antarctica accords with this canon of construction. Lastly, the presumption against extraterritorial application of United States statutes requires that any lingering doubt regarding the reach of the FTCA be resolved against its encompassing torts committed in Antarctica. "It is a longstanding principle of American law `that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'" EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. --, -- (1991) (quoting Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949)). In applying this principle, "[w]e assume that Congress legislates against the backdrop of the presumption against extraterritoriality." Arabian American Oil Co., supra, at --; accord, e.g., Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 440 (1989) ("When it desires to do so, Congress knows how to place the high seas within the jurisdictional reach of a statute"). The applicability of the presumption is not defeated here just because the FTCA specifically addresses the issue of extraterritorial application in the foreign-country exception. To the contrary, as we stated in United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222 (1949), "[t]hat presumption, far from being overcome here, is doubly fortified by the language of this statute and the legislative purpose underlying it." Petitioner does not assert, nor could she, that there is clear evidence of congressional intent to apply the FTCA to claims arising in Antarctica.[5] For all of these reasons, we hold that the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to tort claims arising in Antarctica. Some of these reasons are based on the language and structure of the statute itself; others are based on presumptions as to extraterritorial application of Acts of Congress and as to waivers of sovereign immunity. We think these norms of statutory construction have quite likely led us to the same conclusion that the 79th Congress would have reached had it expressly considered the question we now decide: it would not have included a desolate and extraordinarily dangerous land such as Antarctica within the scope of the FTCA. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Affirmed. [1] Without indigenous human population and containing roughly one-tenth of the world's land mass, Antarctica is best described as "an entire continent of disputed territory." F. Auburn, Antarctic Law and Politics 1 (1982). Seven nations-Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom-presently assert formal claims to pie-shaped portions of the continent that total about 85 percent of its expanse. Boczek, The Soviet Union and the Antarctic Regime, 78 Am. J. Int'l L. 834, 840 (1984); Hayton, The Antarctic Settlement of 1959, 54 Am. J. Int'l L. 349 (1960). The United States does not recognize other nations' claims and does not itself assert a sovereign interest in Antarctica, although it maintains a basis for such a claim. Lissitzyn, The American Position on Outer Space and Antarctica, 53 Am. J. Int'l L. 126, 128 (1959). In any event, these sovereign claims have all been suspended by the terms of the Antarctic Treaty, concluded in 1959. Antarctic Treaty, Dec. 1, 1959 [1961] 12 U.S. T. 794, T. I. A. S. No. 4780. Article 4 of the Treaty states that no claim may be enforced, expanded, or compromised while the Treaty is in force, id., art. IV, 12 U.S. T., at 796, thus essentially freezing nations' sovereign claims as of the date of the Treaty's execution. [2] Compare Beattie v. United States, 244 U.S. App. D. C. 70, 756 F.2d 91 (1984) (holding that Antarctica is not a "foreign country" within the meaning of the FTCA). [3] Nor can the law of the plaintiff's domicile, Oregon here, be substituted in FTCA actions based on torts committed in Antarctica. "Congress has expressly stated that the Government's liability is to be determined by the application of a particular law, the law of the place where the act or omission occurred . . . ." Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9 (1962). Petitioner does not contend that her cause of action is based on acts or omissions occurring in Oregon. [4] The history of the FTCA reveals that Congress declined to enact earlier versions of the statute that would have differentiated between foreign and United States residents. Those versions would have barred claims "arising in a foreign country in behalf of an alien." S. 2690, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., Sec. 303(12) (1939) (emphasis added); H. R. 7236, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., Sec. 303(12) (1939) (emphasis added). At the suggestion of the Attorney General, the last five words of the proposed bills were dropped. See Hearings on H. R. 5373 and H. R. 6463 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 29, 35, 66 (1942). As we observed in United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 220 (1949), "[t]he superseded draft had made the waiver of the Government's traditional immunity turn upon the fortuitous circumstance of the injured party's citizenship." The amended version, however, "identified the coverage of the Act with the scope of United States sovereignty." Id., at 220-221. At least insofar as Antarctica is concerned, petitioner's interpretation of the FTCA would effectively resurrect the scheme rejected by Congress; it would deny relief to foreign residents in circumstances where United States residents could recover. [5] Petitioner instead argues that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies only if it serves to avoid "`unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord.'" Brief for Petitioner 16 (quoting EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. --, -- (1991)). But the presumption is rooted in a number of considerations, not the least of which is the common-sense notion that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind. OPINION OF THE COURT: on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit [June 1, 1993] Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. We decide today whether the exchange of a gun for narcotics constitutes "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). We hold that it does. I Petitioner John Angus Smith and his companion went from Tennessee to Florida to buy cocaine; they hoped to resell it at a profit. While in Florida, they met petitioner's acquaintance, Deborah Hoag. Hoag agreed to, and in fact did, purchase cocaine for petitioner. She then accompanied petitioner and his friend to her motel room, where they were joined by a drug dealer. While Hoag listened, petitioner and the dealer discussed petitioner's MAC-10 firearm, which had been modified to operate as an automatic. The MAC-10 apparently is a favorite among criminals. It is small and compact, lightweight, and can be equipped with a silencer. Most important of all, it can be devastating: A fully automatic MAC-10 can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute. The dealer expressed his interest in becoming the owner of a MAC-10, and petitioner promised that he would discuss selling the gun if his arrangement with another potential buyer fell through. Unfortunately for petitioner, Hoag had contacts not only with narcotics traffickers but also with law enforcement officials. In fact, she was a confidential informant. Consistent with her post, she informed the Broward County Sheriff's Office of petitioner's activities. The Sheriff's Office responded quickly, sending an undercover officer to Hoag's motel room. Several others were assigned to keep the motel under surveillance. Upon arriving at Hoag's motel room, the undercover officer presented himself to petitioner as a pawnshop dealer. Petitioner, in turn, presented the officer with a proposition: He had an automatic MAC-10 and silencer with which he might be willing to part. Petitioner then pulled the MAC-10 out of a black canvas bag and showed it to the officer. The officer examined the gun and asked petitioner what he wanted for it. Rather than asking for money, however, petitioner asked for drugs. He was willing to trade his MAC-10, he said, for two ounces of cocaine. The officer told petitioner that he was just a pawnshop dealer and did not distribute narcotics. Nonetheless, he indicated that he wanted the MAC-10 and would try to get the cocaine. The officer then left, promising to return within an hour. Rather than seeking out cocaine as he had promised, the officer returned to the Sheriff's Office to arrange for petitioner's arrest. But petitioner was not content to wait. The officers who were conducting surveillance saw him leave the motel room carrying a gun bag; he then climbed into his van and drove away. The officers reported petitioner's departure and began following him. When law enforcement authorities tried to stop petitioner, he led them on a high-speed chase. Petitioner eventually was apprehended. Petitioner, it turns out, was well armed. A search of his van revealed the MAC-10 weapon, a silencer, ammunition, and a "fast-feed" mechanism. In addition, the police found a MAC-11 machine gun, a loaded .45 caliber pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a scope and homemade silencer. Petitioner also had a loaded 9 millimeter handgun in his waistband. A grand jury sitting in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida returned an indictment charging petitioner with, among other offenses, two drug trafficking crimes-conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. App. 3-9. Most important here, the indictment alleged that petitioner knowingly used the MAC-10 and its silencer during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Id., at 4-5. Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1), a defendant who so uses a firearm must be sentenced to five years' incarceration. And where, as here, the firearm is a "machinegun" or is fitted with a silencer, the sentence is 30 years. See Sec. 924(c)(1) ("if the firearm is a machinegun, or is equipped with a firearm silencer," the sentence is "thirty years"); Sec. 921(a)(23), 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845(b) (term "machinegun" includes automatic weapons). The jury convicted petitioner on all counts. On appeal, petitioner argued that Sec. 924(c)(1)'s penalty for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense covers only situations in which the firearm is used as a weapon. According to petitioner, the provision does not extend to defendants who use a firearm solely as a medium of exchange or for barter. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed. 957 F.2d 835 (1992). The plain language of the statute, the court explained, imposes no requirement that the firearm be used as a weapon. Instead, any use of "the weapon to facilitate in any manner the commission of the offense" suffices. Id., at 837 (internal quotation marks omitted). Shortly before the Eleventh Circuit decided this case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arrived at the same conclusion. United States v. Harris, 294 U.S. App. D. C. 300, 315-316, 959 F.2d 246, 261-262 (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. ___ (1992). In United States v. Phelps, 877 F.2d 28 (1989), however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that trading a gun in a drug-related transaction could not constitute use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the circuits. 506 U.S. ___ (1992). We now affirm. II Section 924(c)(1) requires the imposition of specified penalties if the defendant, "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime[,] uses or carries a firearm." By its terms, the statute requires the prosecution to make two showings. First, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant "use[d] or carrie[d] a firearm." Second, it must prove that the use or carrying was "during and in relation to" a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime." A Petitioner argues that exchanging a firearm for drugs does not constitute "use" of the firearm within the meaning of the statute. He points out that nothing in the record indicates that he fired the MAC-10, threatened anyone with it, or employed it for self-protection. In essence, petitioner argues that he cannot be said to have "use[d]" a firearm unless he used it as a weapon, since that is how firearms most often are used. See 957 F. 2d, at 837 (firearm often facilitates drug offenses by protecting drugs or protecting or emboldening the defendant). Of course, Sec. 924(c)(1) is not limited to those cases in which a gun is used; it applies with equal force whenever a gun is "carrie[d]." In this case, however, the indictment alleged only that petitioner "use[d]" the MAC-10. App. 4. Accordingly, we do not consider whether the evidence might support the conclusion that petitioner carried the MAC-10 within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1). Instead we confine our discussion to what the parties view as the dispositive issue in this case: whether trading a firearm for drugs can constitute "use" of the firearm within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1). When a word is not defined by statute, we normally construe it in accord with its ordinary or natural meaning. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) (words not defined in statute should be given ordinary or common meaning). Accord, post, at 1 ("In the search for statutory meaning, we give nontechnical words and phrases their ordinary meaning"). Surely petitioner's treatment of his MAC-10 can be described as "use" within the every day meaning of that term. Petitioner "used" his MAC-10 in an attempt to obtain drugs by offering to trade it for cocaine. Webster's defines "to use" as "[t]o convert to one's service" or "to employ." Webster's New International Dictionary of English Language 2806 (2d ed. 1949). Black's Law Dictionary contains a similar definition: "[t]o make use of; to convert to one's service; to employ; to avail oneself of; to utilize; to carry out a purpose or action by means of." Black's Law Dictionary 1541 (6th ed. 1990). Indeed, over 100 years ago we gave the word "use" the same gloss, indicating that it means "`to employ'" or "`to derive service from.'" Astor v. Merritt, 111 U.S. 202, 213 (1884). Petitioner's handling of the MAC-10 in this case falls squarely within those definitions. By attempting to trade his MAC-10 for the drugs, he "used" or "employed" it as an item of barter to obtain cocaine; he "derived service" from it because it was going to bring him the very drugs he sought. In petitioner's view, Sec. 924(c)(1) should require proof not only that the defendant used the firearm but also that he used it as a weapon. But the words "as a weapon" appear nowhere in the statute. Rather, Sec. 924(c)(1)'s language sweeps broadly, punishing any "us[e]" of a firearm, so long as the use is "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking offense. See United States v. Long, 284 U.S. App. D. C. 405, 409-410, 905 F.2d 1572, 1576-1577 (Thomas, J.) (although not without limits, the word "use" is "expansive" and extends even to situations where the gun is not actively employed), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 948 (1990). Had Congress intended the narrow construction petitioner urges, it could have so indicated. It did not, and we decline to introduce that additional requirement on our own. Language, of course, cannot be interpreted apart from context. The meaning of a word that appears ambiguous if viewed in isolation may become clear when the word is analyzed in light of the terms that surround it. Recognizing this, petitioner and the dissent argue that the word "uses" has a somewhat reduced scope in Sec. 924(c)(1) because it appears alongside the word "firearm." Specifically, they contend that the average person on the street would not think immediately of a guns-for-drugs trade as an example of "us[ing] a firearm." Rather, that phrase normally evokes an image of the most familiar use to which a firearm is put-use as a weapon. Petitioner and the dissent therefore argue that the statute excludes uses where the weapon is not fired or otherwise employed for its destructive capacity. See post, at 2-4. Indeed, relying on that argument-and without citation to authority-the dissent announces its own, restrictive definition of "use." "To use an instrumentality," the dissent argues, "ordinarily means to use it for its intended purpose." Post, at 1-2. There is a significant flaw to this argument. It is one thing to say that the ordinary meaning of "uses a firearm" includes using a firearm as a weapon, since that is the intended purpose of a firearm and the example of "use" that most immediately comes to mind. But it is quite another to conclude that, as a result, the phrase also excludes any other use. Certainly that conclusion does not follow from the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" itself. As the dictionary definitions and experience make clear, one can use a firearm in a number of ways. That one example of "use" is the first to come to mind when the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" is uttered does not preclude us from recognizing that there are other "uses" that qualify as well. In this case, it is both reasonable and normal to say that petitioner "used" his MAC-10 in his drug trafficking offense by trading it for cocaine; the dissent does not contend otherwise. Post, at 2. The dissent's example of how one might "use" a cane, post, at 2, suffers from a similar flaw. To be sure, "use" as an adornment in a hallway is not the first "use" of a cane that comes to mind. But certainly it does not follow that the only "use" to which a cane might be put is assisting one's grandfather in walking. Quite the opposite: The most infamous use of a cane in American history had nothing to do with walking at all, see J. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom 150 (1988) (describing the caning of Senator Sumner in the United States Senate in 1856); and the use of a cane as an instrument of punishment was once so common that "to cane" has become a verb meaning "[t]o beat with a cane." Webster's New International Dictionary of English Language, supra, at 390. In any event, the only question in this case is whether the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" in Sec. 924(c)(1) is most reasonably read as excluding the use of a firearm in a gun-for-drugs trade. The fact that the phrase clearly includes using a firearm to shoot someone, as the dissent contends, does not answer it. The dissent relies on one authority, the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1992), as "reflect[ing]" its interpretation of the phrase "uses . . . a firearm." See post, at 2-3. But the Guidelines do not define "using a firearm" as using it for its intended purposes, which the dissent apparently assumes are limited to firing, brandishing, displaying, and possessing. In fact, if we entertain for the moment the dubious assumption that the Sentencing Guidelines are relevant in the present context, they support the opposite view. Section 2B3.1(b)(2), upon which the dissent relies, post, at 3, provides for increases in a defendant's offense level, and therefore his sentence, if the offense involved a firearm. The extent of the adjustment varies according to the nature of the gun's involvement. There is a seven-point upward adjustment if the firearm "was discharged," Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(A); a six-point enhancement if a gun was "otherwise used," Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added); and a five-point adjustment if the firearm was brandished, displayed, or possessed, Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(C). Unless the six-point enhancement for "othe[r] use[s]" is mere surplusage, then there must be "uses" for a firearm other than its "intended purposes" of firing, brandishing, displaying, or possessing. The dissent points out that there may be some uses that are not firing or brandishing but constitute use as a weapon nonetheless. See post, at 4, n. 2. But nothing in Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) suggests that the phrase "othe[r] use[s]" must be so limited. On the contrary, it is perfectly reasonable to construe Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) as including uses, such as trading and bludgeoning, that do not constitute use for the firearm's "intended purpose." It is true that the Guidelines commentary defines "`[o]therwise used'" as conduct that falls short of "`discharg[ing] a firearm but [is] more than brandishing, displaying, or possessing [it].'" Post, at 3 (quoting USSG Sec. 1B1.1, comment., n. 1(g)). That definition, however, simply reflects the peculiar hierarchy of culpability established in USSG Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2). It clarifies that between the most culpable conduct of discharging the firearm and less culpable actions such as "brandishing, displaying, or possessing," lies a category of "othe[r] use[s]" for which the Guidelines impose intermediate punishment. It does not by its terms exclude from its scope trading, bludgeoning, or any other use beyond the firearm's "intended purpose." We are not persuaded that our construction of the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" will produce anomalous applications. See post, at 2 (example of using a gun to scratch one's head). As we already have noted, see supra, at 4, and will explain in greater detail later, infra, at 14-16, Sec. 924(c)(1) requires not only that the defendant "use" the firearm, but also that he use it "during and in relation to" the drug trafficking crime. As a result, the defendant who "uses" a firearm to scratch his head, see post, at 2, or for some other innocuous purpose, would avoid punishment for that conduct altogether: Although scratching one's head with a gun might constitute "use," that action cannot support punishment under Sec. 924(c)(1) unless it facilitates or furthers the drug crime; that the firearm served to relieve an itch is not enough. See infra, at 14-16 (phrase "in relation to" requires, at a minimum, that the use facilitate the crime). Such a defendant would escape the six-point enhancement provided in USSG Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) as well. As the Guidelines definition of "[o]therwise use[d]" makes clear, see USSG Sec. 1B1.1, comment., n. 1(g), the six-point enhancement does not apply unless the use is "more than" brandishing. While pistol-whipping a victim with a firearm might be "more than" brandishing, scratching one's head is not. In any event, the "intended purpose" of a firearm is not that it be used in any offensive manner whatever, but rather that it be used in a particular fashion-by firing it. The dissent's contention therefore cannot be that the defendant must use the firearm "as a weapon," but rather that he must fire it or threaten to fire it, "as a gun." Under the dissent's approach, then, even the criminal who pistol-whips his victim has not used a firearm within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1), for firearms are intended to be fired or brandished, not used as bludgeons. It appears that the dissent similarly would limit the scope of the "othe[r] use[s]" covered by USSG Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(B). The universal view of the courts of appeals, however, is directly to the contrary. No court of appeals ever has held that using a gun to pistol-whip a victim is anything but the "use" of a firearm; nor has any court ever held that trading a firearm for drugs falls short of being the "use" thereof. But cf. Phelps, 877 F. 2d, at 30 (holding that trading a gun for drugs is not use "in relation to" a drug trafficking offense). To the extent there is uncertainty about the scope of the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" in Sec. 924(c)(1), we believe the remainder of Sec. 924 appropriately sets it to rest. Just as a single word cannot be read in isolation, nor can a single provision of a statute. As we have recognized: "Statutory construction . . . is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme-because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law." United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) (citations omitted). Here, Congress employed the words "use" and "firearm" together not only in Sec. 924(c)(1), but also in Sec. 924(d)(1), which deals with forfeiture of firearms. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984) (discussing earlier version of the statute). Under Sec. 924(d)(1), any "firearm or ammunition intended to be used" in the various offenses listed in Sec. 924(d)(3) is subject to seizure and forfeiture. Consistent with petitioner's interpretation, Sec. 924(d)(3) lists offenses in which guns might be used as offensive weapons. See Sec. 924(d)(3)(A), (B) (weapons used in a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense). But it also lists offenses in which the firearm is not used as a weapon but instead as an item of barter or commerce. For example, any gun intended to be "used" in an interstate "transfer, s[ale], trade, gi[ft], transport, or deliver[y]" of a firearm prohibited under Sec. 922(a)(5) where there is a pattern of such activity, see Sec. 924(d)(3)(C), or in a federal offense involving "the exportation of firearms," Sec. 924(d)(3)(F), is subject to forfeiture. In fact, none of the offenses listed in four of the six subsections of Sec. 924(d)(3) involves the bellicose use of a firearm; each offense involves use as an item in commerce.[1] Thus, it is clear from Sec. 924(d)(3) that one who transports, exports, sells, or trades a firearm "uses" it within the meaning of Sec. 924(d)(1)-even though those actions do not involve using the firearm as a weapon. Unless we are to hold that using a firearm has a different meaning in Sec. 924(c)(1) than it does in Sec. 924(d)-and clearly we should not, United Savings Assn., supra, at 371-we must reject petitioner's narrow interpretation. The evident care with which Congress chose the language of Sec. 924(d)(1) reinforces our conclusion in this regard. Although Sec. 924(d)(1) lists numerous firearm-related offenses that render guns subject to forfeiture, Congress did not lump all of those offenses together and require forfeiture solely of guns "used" in a prohibited activity. Instead, it carefully varied the statutory language in accordance with the guns' relation to the offense. For example, with respect to some crimes, the firearm is subject to forfeiture not only if it is "used" but also if it is "involved in" the offense. Sec. 924(d)(1). Examination of the offenses to which the "involved in" language applies reveals why Congress believed it necessary to include such an expansive term. One of the listed offenses, violation Sec. 922(a)(6), is the making of a false statement material to the lawfulness of a gun's transfer. Because making a material misstatement in order to acquire or sell a gun is not "use" of the gun even under the broadest definition of the word "use," Congress carefully expanded the statutory language. As a result, a gun with respect to which a material misstatement is made is subject to forfeiture because, even though the gun is not "used" in the offense, it is "involved in" it. Congress, however, did not so expand the language for offenses in which firearms were "intended to be used," even though the firearms in many of those offenses function as items of commerce rather than as weapons. Instead, Congress apparently was of the view that one could use a gun by trading it. In light of the common meaning of the word "use" and the structure and language of the statute, we are not in any position to disagree. The dissent suggests that our interpretation produces a "strange dichotomy" between "using" a firearm and "carrying" one. Post, at 5-6. We do not see why that is so. Just as a defendant may "use" a firearm within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1) by trading it for drugs or using it to shoot someone, so too would a defendant "carry" the firearm by keeping it on his person whether he intends to exchange it for cocaine or fire it in self-defense. The dichotomy arises, if at all, only when one tries to extend the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" to any use "for any purpose whatever." Ibid. For our purposes, it is sufficient to recognize that, because Sec. 924(d)(1) includes both using a firearm for trade and using a firearm as a weapon as "us[ing] a firearm," it is most reasonable to construe Sec. 924(c)(1) as encompassing both of those "uses" as well. Finally, it is argued that Sec. 924(c)(1) originally dealt with use of a firearm during crimes of violence; the provision concerning use of a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking offenses was added later. Post, at 6. From this, the dissent infers that "use" originally was limited to use of a gun "as a weapon." That the statute in its current form employs the term "use" more broadly is unimportant, the dissent contends, because the addition of the words "`drug trafficking crime' would have been a peculiar way to expand its meaning." Ibid. Even if we assume that Congress had intended the term "use" to have a more limited scope when it passed the original version of Sec. 924(c) in 1968, but see supra, at 6-8, we believe it clear from the face of the statute that the Congress that amended Sec. 924(c) in 1986 did not. Rather, the 1986 Congress employed the term "use" expansively, covering both use as a weapon, as the dissent admits, and use as an item of trade or barter, as an examination of Sec. 924(d) demonstrates. Because the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" is broad enough in ordinary usage to cover use of a firearm as an item of barter or commerce, Congress was free in 1986 so to employ it. The language and structure of Sec. 924 indicates that Congress did just that. Accordingly, we conclude that using a firearm in a guns-for-drugs trade may constitute "us[ing] a firearm" within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1). B Using a firearm, however, is not enough to subject the defendant to the punishment required by Sec. 924(c)(1). Instead, the firearm must be used "during and in relation to" a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). Petitioner does not deny that the alleged use occurred "during" a drug trafficking crime. Nor could he. The indictment charged that petitioner and his companion conspired to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. App. 3-4. There can be no doubt that the gun-for-drugs trade was proposed during and in furtherance of that interstate drug conspiracy. Nor can it be contended that the alleged use did not occur during the "attempt" to possess cocaine with which petitioner also was charged, id., at 4; the MAC-10 served as an inducement to convince the undercover officer to provide petitioner with the drugs that petitioner sought. Petitioner, however, does dispute whether his use of the firearm was "in relation to" the drug trafficking offense. The phrase "in relation to" is expansive, cf. District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, 506 U.S. ___, ____ (1992) (slip op., at 4) (the phrase "relate to" is "deliberately expansive" (internal quotation marks omitted)), as the courts of appeals construing Sec. 924(c)(1) have recognized, United States v. Phelps, 877 F. 2d, at 30 ("[t]he phrase `in relation to' is broad"); United States v. Harris, 294 U.S. App. D. C., at 315, 959 F. 2d, at 261 (per curiam) (firearm is used "in relation to" the crime if it "facilitate[s] the predicate offense in some way"). Nonetheless, the phrase does illuminate Sec. 924(c)(1)'s boundaries. According to Webster's, "in relation to" means "with reference to" or "as regards." Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, at 2102. The phrase "in relation to" thus, at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence. As one court has observed, the "in relation to" language "allay[s] explicitly the concern that a person could be" punished under Sec. 924(c)(1) for committing a drug trafficking offense "while in possession of a firearm" even though the firearm's presence is coincidental or entirely "unrelated" to the crime. United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 539 (CA9 1985) (Kennedy, J.). Instead, the gun at least must "facilitat[e], or ha[ve] the potential of facilitating," the drug trafficking offense. Id., at 540. Accord, United States v. Ocampo, 890 F.2d 1363, 1371-1372 (CA7 1989); 957 F. 2d, at 837. We need not determine the precise contours of the "in relation to" requirement here, however, as petitioner's use of his MAC-10 meets any reasonable construction of it. The MAC-10's presence in this case was not the product of happenstance. On the contrary, "[f]ar more than [in] the ordinary case" under Sec. 924(c)(1), in which the gun merely facilitates the offense by providing a means of protection or intimidation, here "the gun . . . was an integral part of the transaction." United States v. Phelps, 895 F.2d 1281, 1283 (CA9 1990) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Without it, the deal would not have been possible. The undercover officer posing as a pawnshop dealer expressly told petitioner that he was not in the narcotics business and that he did not get involved with drugs. For a MAC-10, however, he was willing to see if he could track down some cocaine. Relying on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Phelps and on the legislative record, petitioner insists that the relationship between the gun and the drug offense in this case is not the type of connection Congress contemplated when it drafted Sec. 924(c)(1). With respect to that argument, we agree with the District of Columbia Circuit's observation: "It may well be that Congress, when it drafted the language of [ Sec. ]924(c), had in mind a more obvious use of guns in connection with a drug crime, but the language [of the statute] is not so limited[;] nor can we imagine any reason why Congress would not have wished its language to cover this situation. Whether guns are used as the medium of exchange for drugs sold illegally or as a means to protect the transaction or dealers, their introduction into the scene of drug transactions dramatically heightens the danger to society." Harris, supra, at 316, 959 F. 2d, at 262. One need look no further than the pages of the Federal Reporter to verify the truth of that observation. In Phelps, supra, the defendant arranged to trade his MAC-10 for chemicals necessary to make methamphetamine. The Ninth Circuit held that the gun was not used or carried "in relation to" the drug trafficking offense because it was used as an item of barter and not as a weapon. The defendant, however, did not believe his MAC-10's capabilities were so limited. When he was stopped for a traffic violation, "[t]he MAC 10, suddenly transmogrified [from an item of commerce] into an offensive weapon, was still in [the defendant's] possession[.] [He] opened fire and shot a deputy sheriff." Id., at 1288, n. 4 (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). C Finally, the dissent and petitioner invoke the rule of lenity. Post, at 6-7. The mere possibility of articulating a narrower construction, however, does not by itself make the rule of lenity applicable. Instead, that venerable rule is reserved for cases where, "[a]fter `seiz[ing] every thing from which aid can be derived,'" the Court is "left with an ambiguous statute." United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971) (quoting United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805)). Accord, Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108 (1990). This is not such a case. Not only does petitioner's use of his MAC-10 fall squarely within the common usage and dictionary definitions of the terms "uses . . . a firearm," but Congress affirmatively demonstrated that it meant to include transactions like petitioner's as "us[ing] a firearm" by so employing those terms in Sec. 924(d). Imposing a more restrictive reading of the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" does violence not only to the structure and language of the statute, but to its purpose as well. When Congress enacted the current version of Sec. 924(c)(1), it was no doubt aware that drugs and guns are a dangerous combination. In 1989, 56 percent of all murders in New York City were drug related; during the same period, the figure for the Nation's Capital was as high as 80 percent. The American Enterprise 100 (Jan.-Feb. 1991). The fact that a gun is treated momentarily as an item of commerce does not render it inert or deprive it of destructive capacity. Rather, as experience demonstrates, it can be converted instantaneously from currency to cannon. See supra, at 16. We therefore see no reason why Congress would have intended courts and juries applying Sec. 924(c)(1) to draw a fine metaphysical distinction between a gun's role in a drug offense as a weapon and its role as an item of barter; it creates a grave possibility of violence and death in either capacity. We have observed that the rule of lenity "cannot dictate an implausible interpretation of a statute, nor one at odds with the generally accepted contemporary meaning of a term." Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 596 (1990). That observation controls this case. Both a firearm's use as a weapon and its use as an item of barter fall within the plain language of Sec. 924(c)(1), so long as the use occurs during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense; both must constitute "uses" of a firearm for Sec. 924(d)(1) to make any sense at all; and both create the very dangers and risks that Congress meant Sec. 924(c)(1) to address. We therefore hold that a criminal who trades his firearm for drugs "uses" it during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of Sec. 924(c)(1). Because the evidence in this case showed that petitioner "used" his MAC-10 machine gun and silencer in precisely such a manner, proposing to trade them for cocaine, petitioner properly was subjected to Sec. 924(c)(1)'s 30-year mandatory minimum sentence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is affirmed. It is so ordered. [1] Section 924(d)(3)(C) lists four offenses: unlicensed manufacture of or commerce in firearms, in violation of Sec. 922(a)(1); unlicensed receipt of a weapon from outside the State, in violation of Sec. 922(a)(3); unlicensed transfer of a firearm to a resident of a different State, in violation of Sec. 922(a)(5); and delivery of a gun by a licensed entity to a resident of a State that is not the licensee's, in violation of Sec. 922(b)(3). Section 924(d)(3)(D) mentions only one offense, the transfer or sale of a weapon to disqualified persons, such as fugitives from justice and felons, in violation of Sec. 922(d). Under Sec. 924(d)(3)(E), firearms are subject to forfeiture if they are intended to be used in any of five listed offenses: shipping stolen firearms in violation of Sec. 922(i); receipt of stolen firearms in violation of Sec. 922(j); importation of firearms in violation of Sec. 922(l); shipment of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Sec. 922(n); and shipment or receipt of a firearm with intent to commit a felony, in violation of Sec. 924(b). Finally, Sec. 924(d)(3)(F) subjects to forfeiture any firearm intended to be used in any offense that may be prosecuted in federal court if it involves the exportation of firearms. CONCURRING OPINION: Opinion of Blackmun, J. (concurring) on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit [June 1, 1993] Justice Blackmun, concurring. I join the Court's opinion in full because I understand the discussion in Part IIB not to foreclose the possibility that the "in relation to" language of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1) requires more than mere furtherance or facilitation of a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime. I agree with the Court that because petitioner's use of his MAC-10 meets any reasonable construction of the phrase, it is unnecessary to determine in this case the precise contours of "in relation to" as it appears in Sec. 924(c)(1). See ante, at 15. DISSENTING OPINION: Opinion of Stevens, J. (dissenting) on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [March 8, 1993] Justice Stevens, dissenting. In my opinion the Court's decision to grant certiorari in this case was a wise exercise of its discretion. The question whether the United States should be held responsible for the tortious conduct of its agents in the vast "sovereignless region" of Antarctica, ante, at 1, is profoundly important, not only because its answer identifies the character of our concern about ordinary justice, but also because Antarctica is just one of three vast sovereignless places where the negligence of federal agents may cause death or physical injury. The negligence that is alleged in this case will surely have its parallels in outer space as our astronauts continue their explorations of ungoverned regions far beyond the jurisdictional boundaries that were familiar to the Congress that enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 1946. Moreover, our jurisprudence relating to negligence of federal agents on the sovereignless high seas points unerringly to the correct disposition of this case. Unfortunately, the Court has ignored that jurisprudence in its parsimonious construction of the FTCA's "sweeping" waiver of sovereign immunity.[1] In theory the territorial limits on the consent to sue the United States for the torts of its agents might be defined in four ways: (1) there is no such limit; (2) territory subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country is the only exclusion; (3) it also excludes sovereignless land areas such as Antarctica, but it includes the high seas and outer space; or (4) it has an "exclusive domestic focus" that applies "only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2] The "foreign country" exclusion in Sec. 2680(k)[3] unquestionably eliminates the first possibility. In my opinion, the second is compelled by the text of the Act.[4] The third possibility is not expressly rejected by the Court, but the reasoning in its terse opinion seems more consistent with the Government's unambiguous adoption of the fourth, and narrowest, interpretation. I shall therefore first explain why the text of the FTCA unquestionably requires rejection of the Government's submission. I The FTCA includes both a broad grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts in Sec. 1346(b)[5] and a broad waiver of sovereign immunity in Sec. 2674.[6] Neither of these sections identifies any territorial limit on the coverage of the Act. That Congress intended and understood the broad language of those two provisions to extend beyond the territory of the United States is demonstrated by its enactment of two express exceptions from that coverage that would have been unnecessary if the initial grant of jurisdiction and waiver of immunity had been as narrow as the Government contends. One of those, of course, is the "foreign country" exclusion in Sec. 2680(k). See n. 6, supra. The other is the exclusion in Sec. 2680(d) for claims asserted under the Suits in Admiralty Act or the Public Vessels Act.[7] Without that exclusion, a party with a claim against the United States cognizable under either of those venerable statutes would have had the right to elect the pre-existing remedy or the newly enacted FTCA remedy. Quite obviously that exclusion would have been unnecessary if the FTCA waiver did not extend to the sovereignless expanses of the high seas. Indeed, it was the enactment of the FTCA in 1946 that first subjected the United States to liability for maritime negligence claims that could not be maintained under either the Suits in Admiralty Act or the Public Vessels Act,[8] in particular, claims arising from death or injury on the high seas. As enacted in 1920, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) provided a remedy against private parties but contained no waiver of sovereign immunity.[9] That changed with the enactment of the FTCA, which waived the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims arising on the high seas under the DOHSA and the general maritime law. See, e.g., United States v. Gavagan, 280 F.2d 319, 321 (CA5 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 933 (1961) (holding United States liable, under the FTCA and the DOHSA, for death resulting from negligent rescue efforts on the high seas); Blumenthal v. United States, 189 F. Supp. 439, 446-447 (ED Pa. 1960) ("In the same manner as a private person is liable under the Death on the High Seas Act, so, too, is the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act"), aff'd, 306 F.2d 16 (CA3 1962); Kunkel v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 591, 594 (SD Cal. 1956) (same); Moran v. United States, 102 F. Supp. 275 (D Conn. 1951) (holding that the FTCA waived the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims arising from both personal injury and death on the high seas). See also McCormick v. United States, 680 F.2d 345, 349 (CA5 1982) (citing Moran with approval); Roberts v. United States, 498 F.2d 520, 525-526 (CA9 1974) (noting that prior to 1960 amendments to Suits in Admiralty Act, FTCA waived sovereign immunity for claims under the general maritime law and the DOHSA). In 1960, Congress amended the Suits in Admiralty Act so as to bring all maritime torts asserted against the United States, including those arising under the DOHSA, within the purview of the Suits in Admiralty Act and thus outside the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA. See United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 176, n. 14 (1976). There can be no disputing the fact, however, that at the time it was enacted, the FTCA waiver extended to the sovereignless reaches of the high seas. Since the geographic scope of that waiver has never been amended, the Government's submission that it is confined to territory under the jurisdiction of the United States is simply untenable. That the 79th Congress intended the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA to extend to the high seas does not, of course, answer the question whether that waiver extends to the sovereignless region of Antarctica. It does, however, undermine one premise of the Court's analysis: that the presumption against the extraterritorial application of federal statutes supports its narrow construction of the geographic reach of the FTCA. As the Court itself acknowledges, see ante, at 7, that presumption operates "unless a contrary intent appears." Here, the contrary intent is unmistakable. The same Congress that enacted the "foreign country" exception to the broad waiver of sovereign immunity in Sec. 2674, subjected the United States to claims for wrongful death and injury arising well beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The presumption against extraterritorial application of federal statutes simply has no bearing on this case. II The Government, therefore, may not prevail unless Antarctica is a "foreign country" within the meaning of the exception in subsection (k). Properly, in my view, the Court inquires as to how we are to construe this exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Ante, at 6. Instead of answering that question, however, the Court cites a nebulous statement in United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-118 (1979), and simply asserts that construing the foreign-country exception so as to deny recovery to this petitioner somehow accords with congressional intent. Ante, at 6-7. I had thought that canons of statutory constructions were tools to be used to divine congressional intent, not empty phrases used to ratify whatever result is desired in a particular case. In any event, I would answer the question that the Court poses, but then ignores. And as I read our cases, the answer is clear: Exceptions to the "`sweeping'" waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA should be, and have been, "narrowly construed." United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. ___ (1992) (slip op., at 4) (quoting United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543, 547 (1951)).[10] Accordingly, given a choice between two acceptable interpretations of the term "country"-it may designate either a sovereign nation or an expanse of land-it is our duty to adopt the former. Even without that rule of construction, we should favor the interpretation of the term that the Court has previously endorsed. Referring specifically to the term as used in the FTCA, we stated: "We know of no more accurate phrase in common English usage than `foreign country' to denote territory subject to the sovereignty of another nation." United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 219 (1949). That interpretation is consistent with a statutory scheme that imposes tort liability on the Government "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances", see n. 6, supra. As we explained in Spelar: "[T]hough Congress was ready to lay aside a great portion of the sovereign's ancient and unquestioned immunity from suit, it was unwilling to subject the United States to liabilities depending upon the laws of a foreign power." 338 U.S., at 221. Thus, the narrow interpretation of the term "foreign country" is precisely tailored to make the scope of the subsection (k) exception coextensive with its justification. III The Court seeks to buttress its interpretation of the "foreign country" exception by returning to the language of the jurisdictional grant in Sec. 1346(b). As I have noted, federal courts have jurisdiction of civil claims against the United States "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."[11] Emphasizing the last dozen words, the Court essentially argues that Antarctica is "a place that has no law" and therefore it would be "bizarre" to predicate federal liability on its governing law. Ante, at 4-5.[12] Although the words the Court has italicized indicate that Congress may not have actually thought about sovereignless regions, they surely do not support the Court's conclusion. Those words, in conjunction with Sec. 2674, require an answer to the question whether a private defendant, in like circumstances, would be liable to the complainant. The Court fails even to ask that question, possibly because it is so obvious that petitioner could maintain a cause of action against a private party whose negligence caused her husband's death in Antarctica. It is simply wrong to suggest, as the Court does, that Antarctica is "a place that has no law," ante, at 5.[13] The relevant substantive law in this case is the law of the State of Oregon, where petitioner resides. As was well settled at English common law before our Republic was founded, a nation's personal sovereignty over its own citizens may support the exercise of civil jurisdiction in transitory actions arising in places not subject to any sovereign. Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 98 Eng. Rep. 1021, 1032 (K. B. 1774). See also Dutton v. Howell, 1 Eng. Rep. 17, 21 (H. L. 1693). This doctrine of personal sovereignty is well recognized in our cases. As Justice Holmes explained in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909): "No doubt in regions subject to no sovereign, like the high seas, or to no law that civilized countries would recognize as adequate, such [civilized nations] may treat some relations between their citizens as governed by their own law, and keep to some extent the old notion of personal sovereignty alive." Id., at 355-356. Justice Holmes was referring to the assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction by the United States rather than an individual State, but it is clear that the States also have ample power to exercise legislative jurisdiction over the conduct of their own citizens abroad or on the high seas. As we explained in Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69 (1941): "If the United States may control the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas, we see no reason why the State of Florida may not likewise govern the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas with respect to matters in which the State has a legitimate interest and where there is no conflict with acts of Congress." Id., at 77.[14] Surely the State of Oregon, the forum State, has a substantial interest in applying its civil tort law to a case involving the allegedly wrongful death of the spouse of one of its residents. Certainly no other State has an interest in applying its law to these facts. Moreover, application of Oregon's substantive law would in no way conflict with an Act of Congress because Congress has expressly subjected the United States to the laws of the various States for torts committed by the United States and its agents. It is thus perfectly clear that were the defendant in this case a private party, there would be law to apply to determine that party's liability to petitioner. Given the plain language of Sec. 2674, I see no basis for the Court's refusal to follow the statutory command and hold the United States "liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." IV Petitioner's action was filed "in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides", as Sec. 1402(b) authorizes; there is, therefore, no objection to venue in this case. Because that provision would not provide a forum for a comparable action brought by a nonresident alien, the statute contains an omission that is no stranger to our law. In our opinion in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 710, n. 8 (1972), we identified examples of "cases in which the federal courts have jurisdiction but there is no district in which venue is proper" and stated that "in construing venue statutes it is reasonable to prefer the construction that avoids leaving such a gap." (emphasis added). Neither in that case nor in any other did we suggest that a venue gap should be avoided by adopting a narrow construction of either a jurisdictional grant or the scope of a federal cause of action. Yet that is the Court's perverse solution to the narrow venue gap in the FTCA. Because a hypothetical handful of nonresident aliens may have no forum in which to seek relief for torts committed by federal agents in outer space or in Antarctica, the Court decides that the scope of the remedy itself should be narrowly construed. This anomalous conclusion surely derives no support whatsoever from the basic decision to include aliens as well as citizens within the protection of the statute, particularly since the overwhelming majority of aliens who may have occasion to invoke the FTCA are surely residents. As Judge Fletcher accurately observed in her dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals: "Those who have no problem with venue should not be foreclosed from bringing suit simply because others cannot, particularly with respect to a statute such as the FTCA the primary purpose of which, as we have seen, was to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts." 953 F.2d 1116, 1122 (CA9 1991). At most, the imperfections in the statute indicate that in 1946 the 79th Congress did not specifically consider the likelihood of negligence actions arising in outer space or in a sovereignless territory such as Antarctica. In view of the fact that it did authorize actions against the United States arising out of negligence on the high seas, see supra, at 2-5, I am bewildered by the Court's speculation that if it had expressly considered the equally dangerous area at issue in this case, it would have distinguished between the two. Ante, at 8. The claim asserted in this case is entirely consistent with the central purpose of the entire Act. Indeed, given that the choice is between imposing individual liability on federal agents for torts committed in the course of their employment, on the one hand, or holding their employer responsible, on the other hand, the amendment to the FTCA adopted by Congress in 1988 sheds more light on the issue presented in this case than the Court's unfounded speculation about congressional intent. The congressional findings explaining the decision to immunize federal employees from personal liability for negligence in the performance of their duties indicate that Congress recognizes both the practical value and the justice of a generous interpretation of the FTCA.[15] Moreover, those findings are thoroughly consistent with the interpretative approach of the unusually distinguished panel of Circuit Judges who, shortly after the FTCA was passed, wrote: "When after many years of discussion and debate Congress has at length established a general policy of governmental generosity toward tort claimants, it would seem that that policy should not be set aside or hampered by a niggardly construction based on formal rules made obsolete by the very purpose of the Act itself. Particularly should this be true as to the broad terms of coverage employed in the basic grant of liability itself." Spelar v. United States, 171 F.2d 208, 209 (CA2 1948).[16] The wisdom that prompted the Court's grant of certiorari is not reflected in its interpretation of the 1946 Act. Rather, it reflects a vision that would exclude electronic eavesdropping from the coverage of the Fourth Amendment and satellites from the coverage of the Commerce Clause. The international community includes sovereignless places but no places where there is no rule of law. Majestic legislation like the Federal Tort Claims Act should be read with the vision of the judge, enlightened by an interest in justice, not through the opaque green eye-shade of the cloistered bookkeeper. As President Lincoln observed in his first State of the Union Message: "It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals."[17] I respectfully dissent. [1] "The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the Government's immunity from suit in sweeping language." United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543, 547 (1951). [2] See Brief for United States 16, 21-22. [3] "The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to- . . . . . "(k) Any claim arising in a foreign country." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(k). [4] In short, I agree with most of the analysis in Judge Fletcher's dissenting opinion in this case and Judge Wilkey's opinion for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Beattie v. United States, 244 U.S. App. D. C. 70, 756 F.2d 91 (1984). Indeed, I am persuaded that the 79th Congress would have viewed torts committed by federal agents in "desolate and extraordinarily dangerous" lands as falling squarely within the central purpose of the FTCA. Ante, at 8. [5] Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b) provides: "Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." [6] Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2674 provides, in pertinent part: "The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." [7] Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(d) excludes from the coverage of the FTCA "[a]ny claim for which a remedy is provided by sections 741-752, 781-790 of Title 46, relating to claims or suits in admiralty against the United States." [8] See United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 172 (1976) ("Maritime tort claims deemed beyond the reach of both Acts could be brought only on the law side of the district courts under the Federal Tort Claims Act"). [9] Pub. L. 69-165, 41 Stat. 537, codified at, 46 U.S.C. App. Sec. 761 et seq. [10] See also Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289, 298 (1983) and United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366, 383 (1949). As we stated in the latter: "In argument before a number of District Courts and Courts of Appeals, the Government relied upon the doctrine that statutes waiving sovereign immunity must be strictly construed. We think that the congressional attitude in passing the Tort Claims Act is more accurately reflected by Judge Cardozo's statement . . . : `The exemption of the sovereign from suit involves hardship enough where consent has been withheld. We are not to add to its rigor by refinement of construction where consent has been announced.'" Ibid. (quoting Anderson v. Hays Construction Co., 243 N. Y. 140, 147, 153 N. E. 28, 29-30 (1926)). [11] The Court inaccurately refers to the jurisdictional grant as the section that "waives the sovereign immunity of the United States," ante, at 4. It is actually Sec. 2674 that waives immunity from liability by simply providing: "The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . . ." See n. 6, supra. The Court does not quote Sec. 2674. [12] Apparently the Court is assuming that private contracts made in Antarctica are unenforceable and that there is no redress for torts committed by private parties in sovereignless regions. Fortunately our legal system is not that primitive. The statutory reference to "the law of the place where the act or omission occurred" was unquestionably intended to identify the substantive law that would apply to a comparable act or omission by a private party at that place. As long as private conduct is constrained by rules of law, and it certainly is in Antarctica, see infra, at 8-10, there is a governing "law of the place" within the meaning of the FTCA. [13] Indeed, it borders on the absurd to suggest that Antarctica is governed by nothing more than the law of the jungle. The United States exercises both criminal jurisdiction, see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 7(7), and taxing jurisdiction, see 26 U.S.C. Sec. 863(d)(2(A), over the approximately 2,500 Americans that live and work in and around Antarctica each year. See National Science Foundation, Facts About the U.S. Antarctic Program 1 (July 1990). The National Science Foundation operates three year-round stations in Antarctica, the largest of which is comprised of 85 buildings and has a harbor, landing strips on sea ice and shelf ice, and a helicopter pad. Ibid. Transportation to and from New Zealand is frequent during the summer months. Id., at 2. [14] Again, as Justice Holmes explained: "[T]he bare fact of the parties being outside the territory [of the United States] in a place belonging to no other sovereign would not limit the authority of the State, as accepted by civilized theory. No one doubts the power of England or France to govern their own ships upon the high seas." The Hamilton, 207 U.S. 398, 403 (1907). [15] In enacting the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, the stated purpose of which was "to protect Federal employees from personal liability for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, while providing persons injured by the common law torts of Federal employees with an appropriate remedy against the United States," Sec. 2(b), 102 Stat. 4564, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 note, Congress made the following findings: "(1) For more than 40 years the Federal Torts Claims Act has been the legal mechanism for compensating persons injured by negligent or wrongful acts of Federal employees committed within the scope of their employment. "(2) The United States, through the Federal Tort Claims Act, is responsible to injured persons for the common law torts of its employees in the same manner in which the common law historically has recognized the responsibility of an employer for torts committed by its employees within the scope of their employment. "(3) Because Federal employees for many years have been protected from personal common law tort liability by a broad based immunity, the Federal Tort Claims Act has served as the sole means for compensating persons injured by the tortious conduct of Federal employees. "(4) Recent judicial decisions, and particularly the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Westfall v. Erwin, have seriously eroded the common law tort immunity previously available to Federal employees. "(5) This erosion of immunity of Federal employees from common law tort liability has created an immediate crisis involving the prospect of personal liability and the threat of protracted personal tort litigation for the entire Federal workforce. "(6) The prospect of such liability will seriously undermine the morale and well being of Federal employees, impede the ability of agencies to carry out their missions, and diminish the vitality of the Federal Tort Claims Act as the proper remedy for Federal employees torts." Sec. 2(a), 102 Stat. 4563, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 note. [16] The members of the panel were Learned Hand, Chief Judge, and Augustus N. Hand and Charles E. Clark, Circuit Judges. [17] Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., App. 2 (1861). DISSENTING OPINION: Opinion of Scalia, J. (dissenting) on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit [June 1, 1993] Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Souter join, dissenting. Section 924(c)(1) mandates a sentence enhancement for any defendant who "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . uses . . . a firearm." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1). The Court begins its analysis by focusing upon the word "use" in this passage, and explaining that the dictionary definitions of that word are very broad. See ante, at 5. It is, however, a "fundamental principle of statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used." Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 3). That is particularly true of a word as elastic as "use," whose meanings range all the way from "to partake of" (as in "he uses tobacco") to "to be wont or accustomed" (as in "he used to smoke tobacco"). See Webster's New International Dictionary 2806 (2d ed. 1939). In the search for statutory meaning, we give nontechnical words and phrases their ordinary meaning. See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op., at 7); Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979); Minor v. Mechanics Bank of Alexandria, 1 Pet. 46, 64 (1828). To use an instrumentality ordinarily means to use it for its intended purpose. When someone asks "Do you use a cane?" he is not inquiring whether you have your grandfather's silver-handled walking-stick on display in the hall; he wants to know whether you walk with a cane. Similarly, to speak of "using a firearm" is to speak of using it for its distinctive purpose, i.e., as a weapon. To be sure, "one can use a firearm in a number of ways," ante, at 7, including as an article of exchange, just as one can "use" a cane as a hall decoration-but that is not the ordinary meaning of "using" the one or the other.[1] The Court does not appear to grasp the distinction between how a word can be used and how it ordinarily is used. It would, indeed, be "both reasonable and normal to say that petitioner `used' his MAC-10 in his drug trafficking offense by trading it for cocaine." Ibid. It would also be reasonable and normal to say that he "used" it to scratch his head. When one wishes to describe the action of employing the instrument of a firearm for such unusual purposes, "use" is assuredly a verb one could select. But that says nothing about whether the ordinary meaning of the phrase "uses a firearm" embraces such extraordinary employments. It is unquestionably not reasonable and normal, I think, to say simply "do not use firearms" when one means to prohibit selling or scratching with them. The normal usage is reflected, for example, in the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which provide for enhanced sentences when firearms are "discharged," "brandished, displayed, or possessed," or "otherwise used." See, e.g., United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2) (Nov. 1992). As to the latter term, the Guidelines say: "`Otherwise used' with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that the conduct did not amount to the discharge of a firearm but was more than brandishing, displaying, or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon." USSG Sec. 1B1.1, comment., n. 1(g) (definitions). "Otherwise used" in this provision obviously means "otherwise used as a weapon."[2] Given our rule that ordinary meaning governs, and given the ordinary meaning of "uses a firearm," it seems to me inconsequential that "the words `as a weapon' appear nowhere in the statute," ante, at 5; they are reasonably implicit. Petitioner is not, I think, seeking to introduce an "additional requirement" into the text, ante, at 6, but is simply construing the text according to its normal import. The Court seeks to avoid this conclusion by referring to the next subsection of the statute, Sec. 924(d), which does not employ the phrase "uses a firearm," but provides for the confiscation of firearms that are "used in" referenced offenses which include the crimes of transferring, selling, or transporting firearms in interstate commerce. The Court concludes from this that whenever the term appears in this statute, "use" of a firearm must include nonweapon use. See ante, at 10-12. I do not agree. We are dealing here not with a technical word or an "artfully defined" legal term, compare Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. ___, ___ (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2-4), but with common words that are, as I have suggested, inordinately sensitive to context. Just as adding the direct object "a firearm" to the verb "use" narrows the meaning of that verb (it can no longer mean "partake of"), so also adding the modifier "in the offense of transferring, selling, or transporting firearms" to the phrase "use a firearm" expands the meaning of that phrase (it then includes, as it previously would not, nonweapon use). But neither the narrowing nor the expansion should logically be thought to apply to all appearances of the affected word or phrase. Just as every appearance of the word "use" in the statute need not be given the narrow meaning that word acquires in the phrase "use a firearm," so also every appearance of the phrase "use a firearm" need not be given the expansive connotation that phrase acquires in the broader context "use a firearm in crimes such as unlawful sale of firearms." When, for example, the statute provides that its prohibition on certain transactions in firearms "shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes," 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(a)(5)(B), (b)(3)(B), I have no doubt that the "use" referred to is only use as a sporting weapon, and not the use of pawning the firearm to pay for a ski trip. Likewise when, in Sec. 924(c)(1), the phrase "uses . . . a firearm" is not employed in a context that necessarily envisions the unusual "use" of a firearm as a commodity, the normally understood meaning of the phrase should prevail. Another consideration leads to the same conclusion: Sec. 924(c)(1) provides increased penalties not only for one who "uses" a firearm during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, but also for one who "carries" a firearm in those circumstances. The interpretation I would give the language produces an eminently reasonable dichotomy between "using a firearm" (as a weapon) and "carrying a firearm" (which in the context "uses or carries a firearm" means carrying it in such manner as to be ready for use as a weapon). The Court's interpretation, by contrast, produces a strange dichotomy between "using a firearm for any purpose whatever, including barter," and "carrying a firearm."[3] Finally, although the present prosecution was brought under the portion of Sec. 924(c)(1) pertaining to use of a firearm "during and in relation to any . . . drug trafficking crime," I think it significant that that portion is affiliated with the pre-existing provision pertaining to use of a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence," rather than with the firearm-trafficking offenses defined in Sec. 922 and referenced in Sec. 924(d). The word "use" in the "crime of violence" context has the unmistakable import of use as a weapon, and that import carries over, in my view, to the subsequently added phrase "or drug trafficking crime." Surely the word "use" means the same thing as to both, and surely the 1986 addition of "drug trafficking crime" would have been a peculiar way to expand its meaning (beyond "use as a weapon") for crimes of violence. Even if the reader does not consider the issue to be as clear as I do, he must at least acknowledge, I think, that it is eminently debatable-and that is enough, under the rule of lenity, to require finding for the petitioner here. "At the very least, it may be said that the issue is subject to some doubt. Under these circumstances, we adhere to the familiar rule that, `where there is ambiguity in a criminal statute, doubts are resolved in favor of the defendant.'" Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 284-285 (1978), quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348 (1971).[4] For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. [1] The Court asserts that the "significant flaw" in this argument is that "to say that the ordinary meaning of `uses a firearm' includes using a firearm as a weapon" is quite different from saying that the ordinary meaning "also excludes any other use." Ante, at 6 (emphases in original). The two are indeed different-but it is precisely the latter that I assert to be true: The ordinary meaning of "uses a firearm" does not include using it as an article of commerce. I think it perfectly obvious, for example, that the objective falsity requirement for a perjury conviction would not be satisfied if a witness answered "no" to a prosecutor's inquiry whether he had ever "used a firearm," even though he had once sold his grandfather's Enfield rifle to a collector. [2] The Court says that it is "not persuaded that [its] construction of the phrase `uses . . . a firearm' will produce anomalous applications." Ante, at 9. But as proof it points only to the fact that Sec. 924(c)(1) fortuitously contains other language-the requirement that the use be "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime"-that happens to prevent untoward results. Ibid. That language does not, in fact, prevent all untoward results: Though it excludes an enhanced penalty for the burglar who scratches his head with the barrel of a gun, it requires one for the burglar who happens to use a gun handle, rather than a rock, to break the window affording him entrance-hardly a distinction that ought to make a sentencing difference if the gun has no other connection to the crime. But in any event, an excuse that turns upon the language of Sec. 924(c)(1) is good only for that particular statute. The Court cannot avoid "anomalous applications" when it applies its anomalous meaning of "use a firearm" in other contexts-for example, the Guidelines provision just described in text. In a vain attempt to show the contrary, it asserts that the phrase "otherwise used" in the Guidelines means used for any other purpose at all (the Court's preferred meaning of "use a firearm"), so long as it is more "culpable" than brandishing. See ante, at 8. But whence does it derive that convenient limitation? It appears nowhere in the text-as well it should not, since the whole purpose of the Guidelines is to take out of the hands of individual judges determinations as to what is "more culpable" and "less culpable." The definition of "otherwise used" in the Guidelines merely says that it means "more than" brandishing and less than firing. The Court is confident that "scratching one's head" with a firearm is not "more than" brandishing it. See ante, at 9. I certainly agree-but only because the "more" use referred to is more use as a weapon. Reading the Guidelines as they are written (rather than importing the Court's deus ex machina of a culpability scale), and interpreting "use a firearm" in the strange fashion the Court does, produces, see ante, at 8, a full seven-point upward sentence adjustment for firing a gun at a storekeeper during a robbery; a mere five-point adjustment for pointing the gun at the storekeeper (which falls within the Guidelines' definition of "brandished," see USSG Sec. 1B1.1, comment., n. 1(c)); but an intermediate six-point adjustment for using the gun to pry open the cash register or prop open the door. Quite obviously ridiculous. When the Guidelines speak of "otherwise us[ing]" a firearm, they mean, in accordance with normal usage, otherwise "using" it as a weapon-for example, placing the gun barrel in the mouth of the storekeeper to intimidate him. [3] The Court responds to this argument by abandoning all pretense of giving the phrase "uses a firearm" even a permissible meaning, much less its ordinary one. There is no problem, the Court says, because it is not contending that "uses a firearm" means "uses for any purpose," only that it means "uses as a weapon or for trade." See ante, at 12-13. Unfortunately, that is not one of the options that our mother-tongue makes available. "Uses a firearm" can be given a broad meaning ("uses for any purpose") or its more ordinary narrow meaning ("uses as a weapon"); but it can not possibly mean "uses as a weapon or for trade." [4] The Court contends that giving the language its ordinary meaning would frustrate the purpose of the statute, since a gun "can be converted instantaneously from currency to cannon," ante, at 17. Stretching language in order to write a more effective statute than Congress devised is not an exercise we should indulge in. But in any case, the ready ability to use a gun that is at hand as a weapon is perhaps one of the reasons the statute sanctions not only using a firearm, but carrying one. Here, however, the Government chose not to indict under that provision. See ante, at 4. TOC: Syllabus > Syllabus > Opinion of the Court > Opinion of the Court > Blackmun, J. (concurring) > Stevens, J. (dissenting) > Scalia, J. (dissenting) > CASE STATISTICS CASES: 498 U.S. 948; 498 U.S. 103; 495 U.S. 575; 488 U.S. 428; 484 U.S. 365; 465 U.S. 848; 465 U.S. 354; 460 U.S. 289; 444 U.S. 37; 444 U.S. 111; 434 U.S. 275; 425 U.S. 807; 425 U.S. 164; 406 U.S. 706; 404 U.S. 336; 369 U.S. 1; 364 U.S. 933; 346 U.S. 15; 340 U.S. 543; 338 U.S. 366; 338 U.S. 217; 336 U.S. 281; 313 U.S. 69; 213 U.S. 347; 207 U.S. 398; 111 U.S. 202; 959 F. 2d 246; 957 F. 2d 835; 953 F. 2d 1116; 905 F. 2d 1572; 895 F. 2d 1281; 890 F. 2d 1363; 877 F. 2d 28; 779 F. 2d 538; 756 F. 2d 91; 680 F. 2d 345; 498 F. 2d 520; 306 F. 2d 16; 280 F. 2d 319; 171 F. 2d 208; 702 F. Supp. 1480; 189 F. Supp. 439; 140 F. Supp. 591; 102 F. Supp. 275; STATUTES: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 7; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924; 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845; 26 U.S.C. Sec. 863; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2674; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680; Top © Techlaw Reporter - SK Publishing -2001 No Claim to Original Govt. Works