Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Leonard

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided May 5, 2004No. 03-5563Published

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

  1. United States v. Dana Ray MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
  2. United States v. Norman William SmeathersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
  3. United States v. Kirk J. LewitzkeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
  4. United States v. Terry Wayne DudleyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
  5. United States v. James Mitchell ClinganCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API