Court has to a law's diagram tortured sentence structure in order to rule

It's been 50 years since Congress passed 18USC§924, but it still remains an enigmatic, insane hairball of unparseable subordinate clauses and impossible twists and turns.

The 10th Circuit found itself formally diagramming Congress's sentence-structure in order to rule in US v Rentz.

Probably most of us would agree that Rentz did manage to commit two crimes with just one shot. But did he "use" it "during and in relation to" both crimes or only one? And more to the point, what did Congress intend this thing to mean?

This opinion shows the kind of detective work that judges sometimes have to do in order to figure that out, and this particular statute is so bad the court ended up diagramming it:

Tenth Circuit Forced to Diagram Congressional Sentence [Lowering the Bar]