In layman’s terms: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit says because some machine guns – like those on ships and helicopters – are too heavy to “bear,” they are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Eighth Circuit includes the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
On Thursday, November 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the federal ban on machine guns, but did so by creating its own standard.
The case of United States of America v. Charles is an appeal out of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas – Fort Smith.
The 2-1, 8-page decision was issued by a three-judge panel including Chief Judge Collonton, along with Circuit Judges Erickson and Stras.
In 2023, Isaac Charles pled guilty to possessing a machine gun (a “switched” Glock 23). He was found guilty in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o), the federal law banning possession of a machine gun. Charles then filed a rare – and difficult to win – facial challenge against the law, asserting that it violates the Second Amendment.
The district court denied the motion and sentenced Charles to 46 months in prison.
The Eighth Circuit, in considering this case, leaned heavily on a 2008 opinion it issued (shortly after the Supreme Court Heller decision) in a case named United States v. Fincher, in which it “…determined that machine guns were not covered by the Second Amendment”.
The Eighth Circuit says that this challenge fails Heller’s two-step analysis at step one, which Heller identified as: “[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct”.
The court’s novel standard is based on an interpretation of the Second Amendment in which it determined “As a threshold matter, an individual must be able to ‘carry’ the firearm under the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.”
Building its argument, the court asserts that machine guns include:
- (1) the Mark 38 machine gun system that is mounted on warships
- (2) the M230 machine gun mounted on military helicopters
- (3) the M2 machine gun, which the military has mounted on armored vehicles
Finally, putting it together, because an individual cannot carry the above arms, they “…are not bearable weapons, the regulation of at least those weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment.”
In his concurring opinion, Chief Judge Collonton points out that “Rather than resolve the appeal based on circuit precedent as determined by the district court and urged by the government, the majority conjures up its own argument.”
He goes on to criticize the majority’s methodology, calling it “unsound as an adjudicatory practice”:
“The majority cites no authority and identifies no case in which the United States has asserted that § 922(o) encompasses the enumerated weapon systems or prosecuted anyone on that theory.”
Judge Collonton even goes so far as to question if the definition fits, but says it should be left for another case:
“Given that a club, sword, gun, grenade, and shield all can be carried, it is debatable whether the term “weapon” in this criminal statute should be construed expansively to include large mounted military weapon systems and the like.”
