United States v. Leonard
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1DissentMoore, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent because the majority’s reasoning rests on the paradoxical notion that an individual “uses” an object by the act of acquiring it. While I believe ultimately that Danny Leonard (“Leonard”) may not be eligible for a reduction under § 2K2.1(b)(2), it is not by virtue of his illegal acquisition of a firearm that all parties agree was possessed solely as a collectible. Acquisition is not use because use first requires possession, which is possible only after acquisition is complete; one does not “use” a weapon in the process of buying it any more than one “uses” a screwdriver…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Dana Ray MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Norman William SmeathersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Kirk J. LewitzkeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Terry Wayne DudleyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. James Mitchell ClinganCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.