Federal Judge Rules Ban on Machine Guns Unconstitutional

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 ChargesJustin 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

IFC Warrior Wednesday EP86 with Michael Cargill and the ATF

IFC Warrior Wednesday EP86 with Michael Cargill and the ATF

Michael Cargill, whom you read about earlier here on IFC’s Blog, has scored a big win for mom-and-pop FFLs across America and right here in Iowa.  Check out this week’s Warrior Wednesday broadcast and remember, 10% off all your Brownells.com orders over $150 when you’re an IFC member…  Think about it – if you place any sizeable order, that discount will be easily worth your IFC membership

 

ATF Reverses Course on Destroying FFLs Over Paperwork Errors?

ATF Reverses Course on Destroying FFLs Over Paperwork Errors?

The ATF reverses course on unjustly torpedoing FFLs?  We reported to you how ATF was destroying local businesses and taking FFL licenses over things as simple as a single clerical error right here in Iowa.  The Stanley Hunting Center was a victim and IFC brought you that news!

A recent story just broke with a win for FFLs.  Be careful though, every policy position ATF takes, they tend to reverse.  Maybe they were issued a pair of John Kerry’s flip-flops.  Dunno.  They’ve changed course multiple times on just about everything in recent years.  Pistol braces, 80%, Form 1 kits, etc.  You name it.  My sincere hope is this policy change stemming from the suit erected and pursued by Michael Cargill, of Central Texas Gun Works, will do exactly what was intended.  But, like everyone else, we’re leary.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation had this to say in THIS ARTICLE:

Together with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and America First Legal, Austin gun store owner Michael Cargill had sued the ATF over the “zero tolerance” approach. The Biden approach was illegal under the Gun Control Act, which only allows revocation for “willful” violations, and the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of Americans not only to own guns, but to purchase them, as well.

The new enforcement guidance reinstates the decades-long understanding that an honest mistake – like writing “USA” in the field for “county” on a background check form – is not a willful violation of federal law. “For purposes of the regulatory provisions of the GCA, the terms ‘willful’ and ‘willfulness’ mean a purposeful disregard of, a plain indifference to, or a reckless disregard of a known legal obligation. Willfulness requires fact specific application of law,” says the new guidance.

Amerca First Legal counsel, Nicholas Barry said this:

“The ATF seems to have looked at our lawsuit and revised its incorrect application of federal law just as the Court was about to decide this case, and I suspect it would not have gone well for the Biden Administration. This type of lawlessness cannot be permitted. The Biden Administration knew it wasn’t applying the law faithfully, and now that it is on its way out of office — after harming hundreds of FFL license holders, it changed course. This is intolerable to a society based on the rule of law,” said America First Legal counsel Nicholas Barry.

It might be premature, but it appears Michael Cargill is among my new heroes!  From that very same article, he had this to say:

“Freedom wins today, and overreach has no place in a free society,” said plaintiff Michael Cargill. “Faced with defeat, the ATF decided to back down. With that my legal team has shielded all mom-and-pop gun stores in the country.”

This is a huge step, and we’re thankful and owe a debt of gratitude to Cargill and his team at Texas Public Policy Foundation and America First Legal.  But the reality is this…  ATF will continually overstep its boundaries.  That is as certain as the sun rising in the East.  The REAL fix for this is legislative and IFC has worked with the Senator Ernst Staff for over a year on a bill to cure this problem in code – something ATF won’t easily be able to ignore.

Demand Full Second Amendment Rights for Iowa’s Young Adults

Demand Full Second Amendment Rights for Iowa’s Young Adults

Demand Full Second Amendment Rights for Iowa’s Young Adults

Fact: Iowa significantly restricts the right to keep and bear pistols and revolvers for (most) adults aged 18 to 20.

Fact: Both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights, 1791) and Section 1A of the Iowa Constitution (Freedom Amendment, 2022), guarantee the right shall not be infringed upon (hindered or destroyed) by government.

Question: Are Iowa’s current weapons laws restricting adults aged 18 to 20 unconstitutional?

In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court of the United States definitively ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Furthermore, the decision clarified that all inferior courts must use the methodology the Supreme Court employed in Heller v. D.C. (2008) for challenges brought under the Second Amendment. That is,

  • Step One: Determine if the conduct regulated by the law is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text. If the conduct is covered, then the challenged regulation is presumed to be unconstitutional and the burden shifts to the government:
  • Step Two: The government may only justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This means the government must show that the regulation is analogous to historical laws that were common at the time of the Founding or shortly thereafter.

It is obvious that laws restricting the possession or carrying of pistol and revolvers – such as Iowa Code 724.8 and 724.22 – do involve conduct covered by the text (“keep and bear”) of the Second Amendment. It is also apparent that persons aged 18-20 are members of “the people” to whom those rights are guaranteed. Therefore, Iowa’s relevant laws must be presumed to be unconstitutional. The burden is thus on the government to rebut the presumption by showing that the laws are not infringements because they are the same as or appropriately analogous to regulations dating to the founding era. (If a law restricting the right to keep and bears arms was commonplace at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, it could not have been considered an infringement by those who drafted and adopted the amendment. There were few, if any, such laws.)

Iowa will be unable to justify the current restrictions, in that there were no comparable laws in the relevant time period of American history. In fact, the Militia Act of 1792 compelled males aged 18-44 to be enrolled in the militia and to bring their privately obtained firearms with them when mustered. Both Iowa and federal law consider persons to be adults upon reaching age 18. Iowans aged 18 to 20 can marry, enter into contracts, enlist in the military, be employed as sworn law enforcement officers, etc. There can be no constitutional or moral justification for denying this group of adults full access to fundamental rights necessary to defend themselves, their families, and their communities.

Yet Iowa is one of only ten states, plus the District of Columbia, that enforce a minimum age for handgun possession that is more strict than federal law, which is 18 years.

It is well past time that Iowa legislators must fully recognize these fundamental rights of young Iowa adults. This is especially true because a quirk in current Iowa law actually allows young adults visiting or moving here from other states to fully exercise their 2A rights, while denying that ability to native Iowans. You see, Iowa law does not actually prohibit persons aged 18 to 10 from possessing handguns. Instead, it makes it a crime for “any person” to “make available” a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person under the age of 21, with certain limited exceptions. So, a young adult who obtained a handgun while living in another state may possess and carry it while visiting or living in Iowa.

IFC will be vigorously pursuing the repeal of these unconstitutional statutes in the current legislative session. Watch for IFC updates and action alerts on this issue and then contact your legislators to urge their support.

*********
NOTES:

The following 18 states permit individuals under the age of 21 to carry a concealed firearm:

Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota1, Mississippi, Missouri2, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee3, Texas4, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia

These 18 states allow individuals under the age of 21 to obtain a permit to carry weapons or allow constitutional carry without a permit for this age group. In addition, Oklahoma allows 18-year-olds in the military to carry concealed without a permit.

Notes:

  1. Minnesota (By order of federal district court and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which ruled that Minnesota’s law prohibiting permits to adults aged 18-20 is unconstitutional.)
  2. Missouri (Allows 19-year-olds to carry concealed without a permit, with exceptions for 18-year-olds in the military.)
  3. Tennessee (By consent with a court ruling that the law prohibiting issuance of permits to persons 18-20 is unconstitutional.)
  4. Texas (Federal district and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have enjoined Texas from enforcing current Texas laws restricting the right to bear arms of persons aged 18-10.)

It must be noted that in addition to the court cases referred to above, there are several other such age-related cases moving through the federal court system. Significant cases in PA and FL appear to be near resolution. It is likely that the Supreme Court will consider such a case this year or next. It seems almost certain that SCOTUS will fully affirm the 2A rights of young adults.

States with Stricter Minimum Age Requirements for Possession of Handguns than Federal Law

Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Washington, and the District of Columbia impose minimum age requirements for the possession of handguns which are stricter than the federal minimum of 18.

The text of Section 1A of the Iowa Constitution reads:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”