In the 2004 case Robert Johnson, Jr. v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to sentencing guidelines and prior convictions. The petitioner, Robert Johnson Jr., had been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under federal law. During his sentencing hearing, it was determined that he was an "armed career criminal" due to three previous convictions for violent crimes or serious drug offenses which led to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). However, Johnson argued that one of his past convictions should not have counted towards this status because it did not meet ACCA's definition of a violent felony as it involved mere possession rather than use or threat of physical force against another person. The court ruled in favor of the government stating that even though there might be some ambiguity about whether certain crimes qualify as 'violent' under ACCA’s terms; courts can look beyond statutory definitions and consider actual conduct underlying conviction when determining if crime is ‘violent’ for purposes of enhancing sentences.

In the dissenting opinion for Robert Johnson, Jr. v. United States (2004), Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C §924(c) was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that the law should only apply to those who use a firearm in an active way during a crime, not merely possessing it. According to him, mere possession does not constitute "use" as defined by common language or legislative intent behind this statute. The majority’s ruling would mean any criminal who happens to own a gun could be charged under this law even if they did not actively employ it in their illegal activities - an outcome he believed Congress never intended when drafting this legislation.