Federal Judge Dismisses Illegal Machine Gun Possession Case

Federal Judge Carlton Reeves, a 2010 Obama appointee to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, has begrudgingly ruled in favor of a motion to dismiss charges of illegal machine gun possession in the case of United States of America v. Justin Bryce Brown. It is important to distinguish that Reeves did not rule on the Constitutionality of the post-1986 machine gun ban enacted by the Hughes Amendment, a provision of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) that updated the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. Instead, he recognized that the government’s case did not satisfy the standard set by the landmark 2022 United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

“The age-old problem of judging is how to honor an individual’s Constitutional rights and respect the will of a democratically elected majority. We look to history to try and find a satisfying answer to that dilemma. But this Court has its doubts that the historical approach wielded in these recent Second Amendment cases is the right one,” Reeves wrote in his conclusion, citing the Bruen decision while simultaneously protesting its veracity.

Reeves goes on to opine as to the basis for Bruen and other recent SCOTUS decisions with an ironically pessimistic perception of the High Court’s trust of local and state lawmakers, the federal courts, and their propensity to defend the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

“At their core, the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment cases are predicated upon a lack of trust. The Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions did not trust that local and state lawmakers had protected their citizens’ Second Amendment rights or would protect them going forward. The decisions also expressed doubt that federal courts were doing enough to protect those rights… New boundaries were set. They used history as the first and most important test of legality, as if history would be a more trustworthy and reliable guide to constitutional law,” wrote Reeves. 

Wherever would you get that idea, your honor? Could it be how far those lawmakers and courts have strayed from the plain text of the Second Amendment? How about the contrived confusion over the Founder’s clear intent of the Second Amendment to defend the right of citizens to protect themselves against the powers that be, believing that a well-armed citizenry was the best defense against a tyrannical government? As the Founding intent is a settled fact and thus would not constrain Americans' right to bear arms beyond that of their potential adversary, it should come as no surprise that trust in our lawmakers, including those under Article III, has been eroded. 

“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,” according to Reeves.

I know I am supposed to be in awe and offering praise to a federal judge who is willing to set aside his personal bias to rule according to the law, and if you’re waiting to hear that in this case, don’t hold your breath. Judge Reeves speaks of feeling frustration over the faithful application of the law but makes it clear that he disagrees with Bruen. How is it, then, that he is not able to disagree with the Second Amendment but respect its plain text and intent, shunning all gun control thereafter as unconstitutional? Don’t get me wrong. I am elated that he ruled as he did. However, I find his discourse inconsistent and disingenuous rather than commendable. 

While Reeves’ decision is indicative of the impact that the Bruen decision has had on Second Amendment jurisprudence, reasserting the understanding that “shall not be infringed” is an “unqualified command,” as Justice Thomas wrote, it’s important to note that United States of America v. Justin Bryce Brown is a criminal case, and therefore his decision is considered “as applied” only to the defendant. To invalidate the law broadly would involve a successful facial challenge, meaning that even though a federal judge has ruled the law cannot be applied against Brown, the government may continue to pursue other defendants under the same conditions. Was it not Reeves himself who spoke of confusion? 

The government also argued that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” and thus can be banned, citing historical regulations against carrying arms offensively or publicly, with these types of firearms not deemed relevant to possess in one’s home. However, the court found no historical basis to support a ban on the possession of machine guns in one’s home and asserted that the government had failed to demonstrate them as “unusual” given the reportedly 740,000 currently owned in the United States.

“Seven hundred and forty thousand is no small number… The government presents no argument or explanation for why such a large figure is somehow not common. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines common as, among other things, 'widespread.' Three-quarters of a million of any kind of firearm is plainly widespread,” said Reeves.

In August of 2024, a similar case was brought against Tamori Morgan in a Kansas federal court. Reeves’ decision echoed the ruling in that case, which was also dismissed on the basis that it did not pass the Bruen test and that the government failed to prove machine guns “unusual,” especially in light of the fact that so many are still owned by private citizens and are also in circulation so long as Americans comply with National Firearms Act’s requirements to obtain and possess them.

It remains to be seen if the Justice Department will appeal the ruling to the more often conservative Fifth Circuit, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January and the unqualified perception that he will somehow return to office as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. Now that Trump sits at the helm of the DOJ, how will his ATF react to the ruling? Pardon my skepticism, or don’t, but I have yet to see any executive action in defense of the Second Amendment. If you think I should be patient while the proverbial 4D chess match that I couldn’t possibly understand plays out, then give me a timeline by which my lack of patience can be justified. One month? Three months? One year? We’ve been here before, and I’m not just referring to President Trump’s first administration. It was approximately 40 years ago when the National Rifle Association (NRA) promised to fight the Hughes Amendment, yet here we are, and so it goes.

About the Author: Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As a News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.

---