In McLaughlin v. United States, 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that a bank robbery committed with an unloaded gun still constitutes armed robbery under federal law. The case involved John Angus McLaughlin who was convicted of robbing a federally insured savings and loan association while brandishing an unloaded handgun. He appealed his conviction arguing that since the gun was not loaded, he did not commit "armed" robbery as defined by federal statute 18 U.S.C §2113(d). However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his conviction stating that even if a firearm is not loaded or functional it can still be used to intimidate victims during a crime which fits within the definition of 'dangerous weapon' in context of armed robberies.

In the dissenting opinion for McLaughlin v. United States, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that a bank is not "occupied" when it's closed and no employees are present. He believed that the majority misinterpreted the federal bank robbery statute by extending its application to burglary of an unoccupied bank. According to him, this interpretation was inconsistent with Congress' intent in drafting the law which aimed at protecting individuals from harm during robberies rather than safeguarding property or preventing thefts per se. Therefore, he contended that while McLaughlin’s actions were criminal and punishable under state laws or other federal statutes dealing with theft or burglary, they did not constitute a violation of the specific federal bank robbery statute under consideration in this case.