In the case of Frank J. Muscarello v. United States, 1997, the U.S Supreme Court had to interpret a federal statute that imposes a five-year mandatory prison term for any person who “uses” a firearm during and in relation to any drug trafficking crime. The question was whether or not this law applies when an offender transports guns in his vehicle but does not actively employ them during the commission of the offense. In this case, Muscarello had transported firearms in his truck while transporting marijuana for sale. The court ruled by a 5-4 majority that "use" under federal law includes transportation of firearms intended for potential use at destination points even if they were not brandished or fired during transit related to drug trafficking crimes. Therefore, it upheld convictions against two men (including Muscarello) who carried unloaded weapons locked away inside their vehicles while committing drug offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Muscarello v. United States, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of "carries a firearm" was overly broad and inconsistent with ordinary language use. She contended that common understanding of this phrase would not include transporting a gun in a vehicle’s trunk or glove compartment, but rather carrying it on one's person. The legislative history did not indicate an intention to punish transportation of firearms as severely as actual possession during drug transactions. Furthermore, she pointed out inconsistencies in applying such broad interpretations - if 'carry' included transport by vehicle for guns, why wouldn't it also apply to other objects mentioned in the same statute? For example, under this logic someone who transported money used to purchase drugs could be said to ‘wear’ or ‘carry’ currency – clearly absurd implications which highlight how far removed from everyday speech such an interpretation is.