Barrett v. United States · ¶61

We have not bought such arguments before. Consider, for instance, the statutes at issue in Ball—statutes whose elements overlapped but whose sentencing schemes diverged. Those provisions, which were then located at 18 U. S. C. §§ 922(h) and 1202(a), prohibited certain categories of people from, respectively, receiving and possessing certain frearms. The provisions occupied parts of the Code much farther apart than the subsections of § 924 at issue here. And in United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114 (1979), we explained that each statute, “in conjunction with its own sentencing provision, operate[d] independently of the other,” such that the statutes were “each fully enforceable on [their] own terms.” Id., at 118–121. We therefore concluded that the provisions did not incorporate each other's penalties. Id., at 119. Yet, six years later (in Ball), we concluded that the two…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.