The case of Gerald R. Caron v. United States in 1997 revolved around the interpretation of a federal statute regarding firearm possession by convicted felons. Caron had been convicted on state charges and was later found with firearms, violating a federal law prohibiting such possession by individuals with prior convictions. The issue at hand was whether his civil rights had been restored under Massachusetts law, which would exempt him from the federal prohibition if it did not expressly restrict his gun rights. Caron argued that since Massachusetts allowed him to possess some types of guns (like antique firearms), he should be considered as having his civil rights restored fully and thus be exempted from the prohibition entirely. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and ruled against Caron unanimously. They held that for an individual's civil rights to be considered "restored" under this particular statute, they must have all their firearm privileges reinstated - not just some or most of them. This decision clarified how courts should interpret statutes related to restoration of felon’s gun ownership rights: partial restoration does not equate full exemption from prohibitions.

In the dissenting opinion for Gerald R. Caron v. United States, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's interpretation of federal law was overly broad and inconsistent with congressional intent. He contended that Congress did not intend to punish felons who possessed firearms in their homes for self-defense purposes as harshly as those who used them to commit violent crimes or drug trafficking offenses. The majority's decision, he said, would lead to unjust results by imposing severe mandatory minimum sentences on individuals whose conduct was less blameworthy than others subject to the same punishment under federal law. Furthermore, he criticized the Court’s reliance on legislative history rather than clear statutory language in reaching its conclusion.