| Litigants: | McLaughlin v. United States |
| Arguedate: | March 31 |
| Argueyear: | 1986 |
| Decidedate: | April 29 |
| Decideyear: | 1986 |
| Usvol: | 476 |
| Uspage: | 16 |
| Parallelcitations: | 106 S. Ct. 1677; 90 L. Ed. 2d 15; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 146 |
| Holding: | An unloaded handgun is a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of federal bank robbery laws. |
| Majority: | Stevens |
| Joinmajority: | unanimous |
McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that an unloaded handgun is a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of federal bank robbery laws.[1] Justice John Paul Stevens' brief four-paragraph opinion in McLaughlin has been described by some analysts as "the shortest opinion by the Court in decades."[2]
Federal bank robbery statutes provide enhanced penalties for assaults that occur through the use of a “dangerous weapon” during a bank robbery.[3] Over time, a circuit split emerged where some courts ruled that a gun must be "loaded and operable" to qualify as a "dangerous weapon,"[4] while other courts held that an unloaded gun could qualify as a "dangerous weapon."[5] The Supreme Court of the United States granted review in McLaughlin v. United States to resolve this circuit split.[6]
At approximately 9:30 a.m. on July 26, 1984 Lamont Julius McLaughlin and a companion entered a bank in Baltimore, Maryland wearing stocking masks and gloves.[7] McLaughlin "displayed a dark handgun" and ordered patrons to put their hands up.[7] McLaughlin's companion then jumped over the counter and placed approximately $3,400 in a brown paper bag.[7] When McLaughlin and his companion attempted to leave the bank, they were immediately apprehended by police.[7] Officers seized McLaughlin's gun, but discovered it was not loaded.[7] At trial, McLaughlin pleaded guilty to charges of bank robbery and bank larceny.[8] He was also found guilt of assault during a bank robbery “by the use of a dangerous weapon" based on the district court's determination that the unloaded gun was a "dangerous weapon" within the meaning of federal bank robbery statutes.[9] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed McLaughlin's conviction.[8] McLaughlin appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari on November 4, 1985.[10]
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice John Paul Stevens provided three reasons why an unloaded gun is a "dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute.[8] First, Justice Stevens argued that "the law reasonably may presume that such an article is always dangerous even though it may not be armed at a particular time or place."[8] Second, he argued that "the display of a gun instills fear in the average citizen," even if it is not loaded, and "creates an immediate danger that a violent response will ensue."[11] Third, he argued that an unloaded gun "can cause harm when used as a bludgeon."[12]