In layman’s terms: A federal appeals court denied Second Amendment protections in a murder case involving a “switched pistol” by concluding that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual.”
The adage that “bad facts make bad law” is perfectly illustrated in a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that affirmed the conviction of a man bringing a Second Amendment challenge in a “machine gun” murder case. However, the panel also misapplied the Bruen doctrine that serves as Supreme Court precedent on Second Amendment cases.
On January 12, a three-judge panel rendered a decision in United States v. Wilson, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The panel rejected the argument by Mr. Wilson that his conviction violates the Second Amendment and affirmed his 120-month prison sentence.
In their analysis on X, the Second Amendment Foundation observed, “As is often the case in machine gun criminal matters, the facts are about as unsympathetic as it gets.”
The sordid facts of the case are presented concisely in the decision:
On May 9, 2023, Wilson and two friends met D.J. in a Valero gas station parking lot to purchase a firearm for $300. As they left, they discovered the firearm was fake. Angered, Wilson drew a Palmetto State Armory Dagger pistol outfitted with a Glock switch – a device that converts a semiautomatic handgun into a fully automatic weapon – and retrieved an extended magazine capable of holding 31 rounds from his vehicle. The three men then walked to the rear of the station to confront D.J. After a brief exchange, Wilson fired multiple rounds, striking D.J. repeatedly until he fell. Wilson and his friends then robbed D.J. of cash and a gun before fleeing.
Subsequently, Mr. Wilson challenged the charge of unlawful possession of a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o), on Second Amendment grounds, along with a technical argument related to his sentencing.
In its analysis, the court refers to a previous case it ruled on challenging the same statute, Hollis v. Lynch. The pre-Bruen case focused on the “in common use” doctrine in Heller, and “concluded that machineguns are not ‘in common use’ and thus fall outside the Second Amendment.” Additionally, it leaned on the “dangerous and unusual weapon” dictum to decide that machine guns could be regulated.
Courts have long tried to set thresholds for what is considered “common use,” with this decision referencing 175,977 pre-1986 civilian-owned machineguns, 200,000 stun guns, and Mr. Wilson’s observation that the ATF reported roughly 740,000 registered machineguns. The court outright rejected that data point, writing, “Most straightforwardly, Wilson’s numbers have no bearing on Hollis’s precedential force,” adding that “Wilson’s ‘updated’ statistics are misleading at best,” because the court believes government-held machineguns don’t qualify.
The panel then decided that the analysis could effectively sidestep the Bruen requirements, and that the Hollis decision provided a sufficient framework because “Hollis never invoked – let alone relied upon – the now-discarded means-end scrutiny. It rested on Heller’s ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ language…”
And in a carefully crafted bit of reasoning, the panel asserts, “Therefore, overruling Hollis is not ‘unequivocally directed’ by Bruen…. In sum, Hollis continues to bind us. And because Hollis controls, Wilson’s Second Amendment challenge to his Section 922(o) conviction must fail.”
While the facts of this case are unfavorable to Mr. Wilson, the case itself is yet another example of an appeals court circumventing the most significant and powerful precedent yet given by the Supreme Court on how to address, view, and rule upon Second Amendment rights.
