Federal Judge Rules Ban on Machine Guns Unconstitutional

Federal District Judge rules the federal ban on possession of machine guns (obtained post-1986) is unconstitutional!

Be aware that a federal district judge in Mississippi has just ruled, albeit grudgingly, that the federal law [18 U.S.C. § 922(o)] prohibiting possession or transfer of a machine gun that was not lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment rights of the appellant and has dismissed the criminal charges against him. As this was a criminal case, the decision is “as applied” only to that individual. This leaves open the possibility that the law might withstand constitutional scrutiny with a different set of facts. It would take a successful “facial” challenge to invalidate the law broadly.

This is at least the second federal district judge to rule this way since the Supreme Court upended Second Amendment jurisprudence in its Bruen decision in June 2022. As noted in this judge’s opinion (attached), Bruen has rendered “obsolete” or “abrogated” previous court precedents upholding the law in such cases.

Iowans, consider this:

• Iowa Firearms Coalition has long had a goal of eliminating Iowa’s ban on the possession of machine guns, even if they are lawfully possessed under federal law (as is permitted by at least 37 other states).
• This decision is indicative of how much the Bruen decision has upended Second Amendment jurisprudence by reasserting the original understanding that “shall not be infringed” is an “unqualified command” (Justice Thomas writing in Bruen). If such a notorious and long-standing (1934 & 1986) “gun control” law can be overturned (as Bruen itself did New York State’s 109-year-old Sullivan Law), what more seemingly mundane laws may be violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms? Iowa needs to take stock…

Here are the key points from the court decision:

1. Defendant and Charges: Justin Bryce Brown is charged with possessing a machine gun, which violates 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2).
2. Legal Framework:
   • Section 922(o) bans possession of machine guns unless they were legally possessed before the law’s effective date.
   • Section 924(a)(2) prescribes penalties for unlawful possession of machine guns, including fines and imprisonment.
3. Defendant’s Motion: Brown moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that as he has no felony convictions, his Second Amendment rights protect him from prosecution under these statutes.
4. Legal Precedent and New Standards:
   • Previous precedents on Second Amendment rights are considered obsolete due to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a new historical paradigm for Second Amendment challenges.
   • The government must now show that the firearm restriction aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
5. Government’s Arguments:
   • Argued that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” and thus can be banned.
   • Cited historical regulations against carrying arms offensively or publicly, but these were not deemed relevant to possession in one’s home.
6. Court’s Analysis:
   • No historical analogues support banning the possession of machine guns in one’s home, especially when not used offensively or in public.
   • The government failed to demonstrate that machineguns are “unusual” given there are reportedly 740,000 in the U.S., suggesting they are not uncommon.
7. Decision:
   • The court dismissed the case against Brown, finding the government did not meet its burden under the new Bruen test to show machinegun possession is outside Second Amendment protections for non-felons in their homes.
8. Judicial Reflection:
   • The judge expresses skepticism about the historical analysis method mandated by Bruen, highlighting the confusion it has caused in lower courts and the potential for judicial overreach in historical interpretation.
9. Conclusion:
   • The motion to dismiss is granted, but this does not preclude the government from enforcing the statute in other cases where they can meet the new legal standard.

-Richard Rogers – IFC Board Member and Chief Lobbyist