Well, here we go again—another chapter in the ongoing saga of gun rights, and this time, it’s about machineguns. Not your typical AR-15 or Glock 19, but the big boys—the fully automatic, high-powered beasts that, thanks to a decades-old law, have been largely off-limits to average Americans. But, as always, where there’s a law restricting a fundamental right, you can bet there will be those who fight back, and three major gun-rights groups are doing just that.
On June 3, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the FPC Action Committee (FPCAC), and the National Rifle Association (NRA) teamed up to file a brief with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. Brown. What’s at stake here? Well, it’s the long-standing federal ban on the possession of machineguns that were not registered before May 19, 1986. This law, which has been in place for decades, criminalizes the possession of a machinegun unless it’s been properly registered. If you’ve got one, and it’s not registered, you’re looking at a felony charge.
In this case, Justin Bryce Brown, the defendant, was convicted of possessing a machinegun that wasn’t registered. He challenged the law, arguing that it violated his Second Amendment rights. The district court agreed with him, ruling that the federal ban was unconstitutional as it applied to his case, primarily because the government didn’t prove that the law was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Now, here comes the kicker. The gun-rights groups—FPC, FPCAC, and NRA—are throwing their support behind Brown’s argument, saying that the lower court made the right call, and the 5th Circuit should uphold the decision. The brief they filed essentially calls for the Fifth Circuit to fully apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and any restriction must be based on historical tradition.
In simple terms: You can’t just ban a firearm because it’s “dangerous.” You have to prove that it’s “dangerous and unusual.” And the government? They failed to do that. According to the brief, the government didn’t meet its burden to show that machineguns are unusual or that they should be restricted under the Second Amendment. Heller, after all, made it clear that arms only lose their protection under the Second Amendment if they are “dangerous and unusual”—and the government never demonstrated that machineguns fit that category, even if some criminals use them.
Here’s the real crux of the argument: Just because criminals like certain weapons doesn’t mean that law-abiding citizens should be deprived of their right to possess them. As the brief points out, the focus should always be on law-abiding citizens and their ability to possess arms for lawful purposes. Criminal use of a firearm shouldn’t be the bar for determining whether that firearm is protected under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently focused on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, not how criminals might misuse them. This is where the government stumbled—focusing on policy arguments rather than historical traditions—and they failed to meet the heavy burden required in cases involving the Second Amendment.
Brandon Combs, the president of FPC, didn’t mince words in a recent release about this case. He argued that the lower court’s ruling was spot on, and the 5th Circuit should follow suit. “The Fifth Circuit should fully and faithfully apply the Supreme Court’s controlling Second Amendment test,” Combs said, making it clear that the government didn’t meet its legal obligation in this case. His statement reflects a broader belief that the Second Amendment isn’t just a nice idea—it’s a constitutional right that needs to be upheld.
Cody J. Wisniewski, president of the FPC Action Committee, added another layer to the argument, referencing the landmark Bruen decision from 2022. This ruling set new guidelines for Second Amendment cases, requiring courts to look closely at the historical precedent behind gun laws. “The weapons at issue here are unquestionably bearable ‘arms,’ so the Court must perform the required historical inquiry,” Wisniewski argued. In his view, the question isn’t whether machineguns are dangerous—they are, but they’re also bearable arms. The question is whether they are in common use for lawful purposes today. And according to the evidence, they are.
In its announcement, the NRA echoed similar sentiments. The organization noted that, as the district court explained, this case represents a “heavy burden” for the government. The brief highlights that, rather than relying on historical evidence, the government attempted to use policy arguments—something that simply doesn’t hold up in the face of the Heller and Bruen rulings.
So, where does this leave us? Well, in a situation where the courts are being asked to weigh in on what some see as a fundamental right under the Second Amendment. For years, the machinegun ban has stood as one of the most significant firearms restrictions in the United States, but that doesn’t mean it’s unassailable. The current case brings this issue into sharp focus, with FPC, FPCAC, and the NRA all pushing for the courts to uphold the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
As the case moves forward, all eyes are on the 5th Circuit. Will they uphold the lower court’s decision, or will they side with the government and further restrict gun ownership? Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that the battle over the right to own firearms—especially those deemed “dangerous” by some—is far from over.
Stay tuned, because this case could set a precedent that impacts the future of gun rights in America. One thing is for sure: The fight to protect the Second Amendment is alive and well, and it’s never been more important.
