The case of Jeffrey Allan Fischer v. United States in 1999 revolved around the interpretation of a federal law that imposes enhanced penalties for using a firearm during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. The Supreme Court had to decide whether an unloaded firearm, which was not immediately accessible, could be considered as "use" under this law. Fischer had been convicted on several counts related to methamphetamine distribution and one count for using a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense after police found an unloaded gun locked inside his safe at home while executing a search warrant. He appealed his conviction arguing that he did not "use" the gun within the meaning of the statute because it was neither loaded nor directly accessible. In its decision, however, the Supreme Court upheld Fischer's conviction stating that even though he did not actively employ or brandish his weapon during his drug offenses, keeping it available for potential use still constituted “using” under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Jeffrey Allan Fischer v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(9) was overly broad and inconsistent with Congressional intent. The dissent contended that Congress intended to target only those domestic abusers who were convicted of crimes involving violence or threatened use of a deadly weapon, not those guilty of minor misdemeanors such as offensive touching. They believed this interpretation would better align with the statute’s purpose to prevent gun possession by violent individuals rather than ensnaring nonviolent offenders in federal criminal liability. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential due process violations arising from defendants being unaware their misdemeanor convictions could later subject them to federal firearm prohibitions under Section 922(g)(9).