Barrett v. United States · ¶38

The text of §924 suggests strongly, perhaps conclusively, that Congress did not disavow Blockburger here. Not for lack of know-how: Congress twice wrote Blockburger-surmounting language into subsection (c) itself. Congress mandated that a §924(c)(1) conviction must be “in addition to the punishment provided for” the predicate, and it also mandated that a §924(c)(5) conviction—for using or carrying “armor piercing ammunition”—must be “in addition to the punishment provided for” the predicate “or conviction under” §924. See §§924(c)(1)(A), (c)(5). We have elsewhere called such “in addition to” language “crystal clear” evidence of a legislature’s intent to overcome Blockburger. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U. S. 359, 362, 368 (1983).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.