Federal Court Decision Takes Another Swing at Ban on Machinegun Possession

In perhaps one of its shortest decisions ever, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued a 12-page decision on January 29th which stated that the federal machine gun ban is inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.In the case of The United States v. Brown, in the United States Court District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, District Court Judge, Carlton Reeves, granted the motion to dismiss the case against defendant, Justin Brown, who was charged with unlawful machine gun possession.

Background of U.S. v. Brown

Justin Bryce Brown was charged with knowingly possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2), which makes it illegal to “possess a machinegun” unless that machinegun “was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.” The charge carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison along with substantial fines.In his “as-applied” challenge to his prosecution, Mr. Brown asked the Court to dismiss the indictment because he has never been convicted of a felony, and thus the Second Amendment protects him from criminal prosecution under these statutes under the Bruen test.

Application of Bruen

Judge Reeves acknowledges that Bruen does indeed overturn the precedent used to enforce the machinegun ban, as “Under the new standard, the government must prove that its desired firearm restriction—which here, means the statute criminalizing simple machinegun possession—is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ ”Judge Reeves also acknowledges that the States’ defense in the name of public safety are likewise relegated to the dustbin of history, as Bruen prohibits any form of interest balancing:

Most of the government’s citations for these arguments are judicial decisions that predate Bruen. Many of its remaining claims, which focus on the benefits to public safety of a machinegun ban, are policy arguments entitled to no weight. Bruen held that “the Second Amendment does not permit . . . judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions under means-end scrutiny.”

He notes another failure of the Bruen application in that although the government attempts to apply the Statute of Northampton as historical precedent, not only was Mr. Brown NOT going riding anywhere, but “None of the government’s proffered ‘historical regulations,’ however, are ‘relevantly similar’ to criminalizing possession of a firearm in one’s home.”Bruen, quoting Heller, does denote an American “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” Judge Reeves points out that machineguns may be dangerous, but are not unusual, citing more than 740,000 machineguns lawfully possessed in the United States in 2021, according to the the Morgan case raised by Mr. Brown. “Seven hundred and forty thousand is no small number. The government has not pointed to any other number. The Court accepts it as true,” wrote Reeves.Judge Reeves summarizes thusly:

This Court cannot go looking for facts that have not been presented before it. The government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that machineguns are both dangerous and unusual. Under Bruen, it therefore cannot restrict Mr. Brown’s possession of one in his home.

Faithful execution, but with strong reservations

However faithfully he applied the Bruen decision, Judge Reeves leaves no doubt for the reader that he vehemently disagrees with the decision:

The ultimate irony is that the version of history endorsed in these (and other) decisions has itself been deemed untrustworthy by actual historians. The experts don’t think lawyers and judges have gotten it right. And, unfortunately, the lack of trust inherent in these decisions cannot be untangled from the public’s declining trust in Article III itself. As one of those tasked with applying these new tests, this Court understands the confusion. It feels the frustration. But its doubts and the discourse, no matter how serious or justified, cannot deter it from faithfully applying the law, even if that application is later found to be erroneous.

Commenting in a Twitter thread on the subject, Hannah Hill, Vice President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, surmised, “My own conclusion: His application of Bruen is refreshingly correct. I just can’t help noticing that this brutal frankness brings him into direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s golden calf of gun control – the machine gun ban. Coincidence?” She also added, “This is an as-applied challenge. This is the judge saying the government can’t prosecute Mr. Brown. The machine gun ban is still standing for the rest of us.”