Obama-Appointed Judge: Short-Barreled Rifles and Machine Guns Not Protected by Second Amendment

September 22, 2024 By Darwin Nercesian

District of Hawaii Judge, Derrick Kahala Watson, has decided that short-barreled rifles and machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment in United States v. Chan. While the Obama appointee ruled in predictable defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen decision, the mental gymnastics used to justify the determination is what stole the show. While conducting a welfare check in 2022, law enforcement officers discovered a bag in the trunk of Christopher Chan’s vehicle containing a short-barreled rifle which had been converted to fire full-automatic. Chan was subsequently charged with possession of an unregistered SBR and a machine gun, both violations of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Chan responded to the charges by filing a complaint claiming that his right to bear arms had been violated. He correctly stated that SBRs are “arms” that fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii could not prove the challenged law is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the test set in place by the Bruen decision. With the U.S. Supreme Court having provided the training wheels, Watson began by demonstrating reasonable understanding:

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation . . . the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Then Watson made a mockery of that understanding, determining that SBRs and machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” and that Chan’s Second Amendment rights did not afford him protection from the charges. In doing so, Watson sidestepped Bruen by citing a 2012 9th Circuit decision in United States v. Henry.

“machine guns are highly ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ that are not ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes’ … the Second Amendment does not apply to machine guns.”

Chan’s attorneys were quick to remind the judge that Henry had been decided prior to the prevailing jurisdictional landscape set by Bruen. This did nothing to quell the spectacle as Watson responded:

“There is no indication that Henry is ‘clearly irreconcilable’ with Bruen.… As a result, Henry remains binding precedent, such that this Court must find that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons … not entitled to Second Amendment protection.”

Watson avoided the obligation to provide any historical basis for the infringements dating back to the Founding Era. Chan’s attorneys, now facing an upside down application of the law, found themselves having to prove their client’s case rather than defending him against the burden belonging to the state of Hawaii.

If it does not appear yet that Watson had chosen his position before hearing the case and would defend that position by any dishonest means necessary, what happened next might turn that page. Watson dismissed, as irrelevant, any and all proof provided by Chan’s attorneys to demonstrate commonality of use. When provided with actual figures such as the 741,146 lawfully registered and possessed machine guns in the United States, Watson responded:

“The number of machine guns, in the abstract, does not establish such weapons are in common use by law-abiding citizens…. This amount remains too insignificant for machineguns to be considered in common use….”

This decision will no doubt face an appeal, as it is ripe for one on both a factual and procedural basis. The state, being legally obligated to prove such firearms may be lawfully restricted based on historical tradition, instead shifted its burden onto Chan, forcing him to otherwise prove they were in common use, then ignored Chan’s attorneys when they provided the court with that proof. While it is hopeful that this may play out in a higher court that could see further clarification and precedent set in favor of the Second Amendment, it is nevertheless daunting to witness the continued “what’re you going to do about it” attitude from activist judges, especially if you’re the one sitting in the hot seat.