Harry Blackmun

“ The legislative history also indicates that Congress singled out burglary (as opposed to other frequently committed property crimes such as larceny and auto theft) for inclusion as a predicate offense, both in 1984 and in 1986, because of its inherent potential for harm to persons. The fact that an offender enters a building to commit a crime often creates the possibility of a violent confrontation between the offender and an occupant, caretaker, or some other person who comes to investigate. ”

“ The most likely explanation, in view of the legislative history, is that Congress thought that certain general categories of property crimes—namely burglary, arson, extortion, and the use of explosives—so often presented a risk of injury to persons, or were so often committed by career criminals, that they should be included in the enhancement statute even though, considered solely in terms of their statutory elements, they do not necessarily involve the use or threat of force against a person. ”

“ This categorical approach, however, may permit the sentencing court to go beyond the mere fact of conviction in a narrow range of cases where a jury was actually required to find all the elements of generic burglary. For example, in a State whose burglary statutes include entry of an automobile as well as abuilding, if the indictment or information and jury instructions show that the defendant was charged only with a burglary of a building, and that the jury necessarily had to find an entry of a building to convict, then the Government should be allowed to use the conviction for enhancement. ”

“ We think, burglary, of course; arson; extortion; and various explosives offenses. ...
"The one problem I see in using a specific generic term like burglary or arson—that's fine for those statutes—but a lot of these newer explosive offenses don't have a single generic term that covers them, and that is something that the committee may want to be very careful about in coming up with the final statutory language.
"It is these crimes against property—which are inherently dangerous—that we think should be considered as predicate offenses." House Hearing, at 15. ”

“ Section 924 (e) (2) (B) (i) defines "violent felony" as any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year that "has as an element"—not any crime that, in a particular case, involves—the use or threat of force. Read in this context, the phrase "is burglary" in § 924 (e) (2) (B) (ii) most likely refers to the elements of the statute of conviction, not to the facts of each defendant's conduct.
Second, as we have said, the legislative history of the enhancement statute shows that Congress generally took a categorical approach to predicate offenses. ”

“ First, throughout the history of the enhancement provision, Congress focused its efforts on career offenders—those who commit a large number of fairly serious crimes as their means of livelihood, and who, because they possess weapons, present at least a potential threat of harm to persons. This concern was not limited to offenders who had actually been convicted of crimes of violence against persons. (Only H. R. 4768, rejected by the House Subcommittee, would have restricted the predicate offenses to crimes actually involving violence against persons.) ”

“ As examples of burglary statutes that would fit this definition, petitioner points to first-degree or aggravated-burglary statutes having elements such as entering an occupied building; being armed with a deadly weapon; or causing or threatening physical injury to a person. See n. 4, supra. This definition has some appeal, because it avoids the arbitrariness of the state-law approach, by restricting the predicate offense in a manner congruent with the general purpose of the enhancement statute. ”

“ At the time of his plea, Taylor had four prior convictions. One was for robbery, one was for assault, and the other two were for second-degree burglary under Missouri law. [1]
The Government sought sentence enhancement under § 924 (e) . Taylor conceded that his robbery and assault convictions properly could be counted as two of the three prior convictions required for enhancement, because they involved the use of physical force against persons, under § 924 (e) (2) (B) (i) . ”

“ Turley, 352 U. S. 407, 411 (1957) (" [I] n the absence of a plain indication of an intent to incorporate diverse state laws into a federal criminal statute, the meaning of the federal statute should not be dependent on state law") .
This Court's response to the similar problem of interpreting the term "extortion" in the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1952, is instructive:
"Appellees argue that Congress' decision not to define extortion combined with its decision to prohibit only extortion in violation of state law compels the conclusion that peculiar versions of state terminology are controlling. ”

“ We have already included burglaries.
"My leanings would be to leave it alone; it is in the existing law; it was the existing statute. We can still be specific enough. We are talking about burglaries that probably are being carried out by an armed criminal, because the triggering mechanism is that they possess a weapon. ... So we are not talking about the average run-of the-mill burglar necessarily, we are talking about somebody who also illegally possesses or has been transferred a firearm." House Hearing, at 41.
After the House hearing, the Subcommittee drafted a compromise bill, H. R. 4885. ”

“ A person is guilty of burglary if he enters abuilding or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. ”

“ This statute provides a sentence enhancement for a defendant who is convicted under 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g) (unlawful possession of a firearm) and who has three prior convictions for specified types of offenses, including "burglary."
I
Under 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g) (1) , it is unlawful for a person who has been convicted previously for a felony to possess a firearm. A defendant convicted for a violation of § 922 (g) (1) is subject to the sentence-enhancement provision at issue, § 924 (e) ”

“ Only five months later, § 924 (e) again was amended, into its present form, by § 1402 of Subtitle I (the Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–39. This amendment effected three changes that, taken together, give rise to the problem presented in this case. ”

“ The Court therefore declined the give the term an "unnaturally narrow reading," and concluded that the defendants' acts fell within "the generic term extortion as used in the Travel Act." Id., at 296. See also Bell v. United States, 462 U. S. 356, 362 (1983) (common-law limitation on meaning of "larceny" not incorporated in Bank Robbery Act because " [t] he congressional goal of protecting bank assets is entirely independent of the traditional distinction on which [the defendant] relies") ”

“ H. R. 4639, on the other hand, was seen as too broad. See id., at 11 (" [I] t is important to prioritize offenses") (statement of Rep. Hughes) ; id., at 16 (" [T] he answer probably lies somewhere between the two bills") (statement of Mr. Knapp) . The hearing concluded with a statement by Representative Hughes, a sponsor of the narrower bill, H. R. 4768 ”