In a significant ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of Jaquan Bridges, a man caught possessing an unregistered machine gun, setting a crucial precedent regarding the scope of Second Amendment protections for such weapons.
As reported by Destiny Devooght of Courthouse News Service, the court found that machine guns, in particular, do not fall under the rights granted by the Second Amendment, reaffirming the longstanding legal stance that certain firearms, especially those deemed “dangerous and unusual”, are not protected.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident involving Jaquan Bridges, who was arrested after nearly hitting a police vehicle in Memphis, Tennessee, before leading officers on a high-speed pursuit. During the chase, Bridges fired his firearm, an altered Glock .40 caliber pistol, at police officers. The gun had been modified with an attachment, often referred to as a “Glock switch,” which converted the handgun into a machine gun capable of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
Bridges was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), a federal statute banning the possession of unregistered machine guns. Despite his conviction and the charges, Bridges appealed, arguing that machine guns should be protected under the Second Amendment as a type of “arms.” However, the Sixth Circuit rejected his appeal, siding with the government’s position that machine guns do not fall under the protections typically granted to firearms under the Second Amendment.
The Sixth Circuit’s Ruling
The panel’s decision came after extensive deliberation, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, which introduced the “dangerous and unusual” test. According to Heller, the Second Amendment does not cover weapons that are particularly hazardous or rarely used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The Sixth Circuit judges applied this framework to conclude that machine guns are not part of the protected arms under the Second Amendment.
Judge Richard Griffin, who authored the opinion, emphasized that the prohibition against unregistered machine guns aligns with the historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons. The court noted that machine guns are most commonly associated with criminal activity, particularly in violent settings, and are rarely used in self-defense or lawful civilian contexts. Given these facts, Griffin and the panel upheld Bridges’ conviction, concluding that the law barring machine guns is consistent with both historical precedent and the constitutional framework.
Historical Precedents in Gun Law
This ruling doesn’t come as a surprise in light of previous legal history. The panel drew heavily on past decisions, particularly Hamblen v. United States, where the Sixth Circuit similarly concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of unregistered machine guns for personal use. As detailed by Courthouse News’ Destiny DeVooght, the court’s reliance on Heller and Hamblen suggests that there is a strong legal tradition against the private possession of these dangerous weapons.
Critics of machine gun bans often argue that such weapons, especially in light of new technologies, should fall under the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections. However, as explained by Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk, the Sixth Circuit’s decision demonstrates that courts are cautious about expanding Second Amendment rights to cover such weapons, given their potential for mass destruction.
Why Machine Guns Are “Dangerous and Unusual”
One of the key arguments made in the ruling is that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual.” Judge Griffin referenced the historical use of machine guns by criminals, especially during the Prohibition era when they became infamous for their role in organized crime and violence. This historical context, where machine guns were predominantly used for illegal activities rather than self-defense or military service, played a significant role in shaping the court’s conclusion.
No Broad Acceptance in the U.S.
While there are over 740,000 registered machine guns in the United States, the court rejected the argument that this number signifies a broad acceptance of such firearms in the civilian sector. As discussed by The Four Boxes Diner’s Mark Smith, a large portion of these machine guns are law enforcement or military-issued, which the court deemed irrelevant to its assessment of civilian gun ownership. The decision to exclude law enforcement machines from the count bolstered the court’s position that machine guns are “unusual” in civilian life.
The Bruen Decision and Its Influence
Bridges’ legal team argued that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which clarified the application of Heller to modern gun laws, should have been applied in this case. However, the Sixth Circuit maintained that Bruen did not alter the “dangerous and unusual” standard set forth in Heller. As William Kirk pointed out, the Bruen ruling affirmed previous legal interpretations without fundamentally changing the analysis for cases like Bridges’, especially when they involve firearms historically tied to criminal use.
The Bruen decision might have offered new opportunities to challenge gun laws, but for machine guns, it appears prior rulings have already settled the legal battle. This points to a critical aspect of ongoing Second Amendment litigation: the courts are slow to expand gun rights to weapons that are deemed too dangerous or disconnected from lawful use.
Implications for Future Second Amendment Cases
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling raises significant questions about the future of Second Amendment litigation, particularly regarding the scope of firearm protections. While this decision may seem like a setback for gun rights advocates, it is important to note that it sets a clear legal precedent: machine guns are not included under the umbrella of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
A Necessary Step?
As Mark Smith noted, while this ruling aligns with current judicial interpretations, it could be seen as a necessary step to prevent a future adverse Supreme Court ruling. By upholding the machine gun ban at the circuit level, the court avoided opening a legal door that could have led to broader challenges against gun control laws, particularly those involving semi-automatic weapons. Smith’s perspective highlights the strategic considerations involved in deciding whether to challenge machine gun bans in the future, emphasizing the risks of prematurely pushing such cases to higher courts.
Legal Strategy and Moving Forward
With the Sixth Circuit ruling now established, the focus for Second Amendment advocates may shift toward crafting stronger arguments for future challenges. As William Kirk highlighted, any future attempts to challenge the constitutionality of machine gun bans will need to consider the facts of the case more carefully. This includes ensuring that the plaintiffs in these cases are not involved in criminal activity, as criminal defendants like Bridges often face significant hurdles in convincing courts to side with them on constitutional issues.
The debate over machine guns touches on broader questions about the limits of Second Amendment rights in the modern age. Gun control advocates argue that restrictions on dangerous weapons like machine guns are necessary to protect public safety, while gun rights supporters often challenge the perceived overreach of such bans.
Legal Arguments Have Evolved
It’s fascinating how the legal arguments surrounding the Second Amendment have evolved. The decision to exclude machine guns from Second Amendment protections is one that underscores the ongoing tension between public safety and individual rights. While some may argue that this ruling limits gun rights, it also reflects the balancing act that courts must navigate when interpreting the Constitution in a modern context.
The ruling in United States v. Bridges shows the complexities of Second Amendment cases, especially as firearms technology continues to evolve. The distinction made between “lawful” and “unlawful” uses of firearms is critical in understanding why certain weapons, like machine guns, are treated differently from more common firearms. This case may not be the last word on the matter, but it certainly sets a strong precedent for how courts will approach these cases moving forward.
A Significant Decision
In sum, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling that machine guns are not protected under the Second Amendment represents a significant decision in the ongoing debate about gun rights in the United States. The court’s reliance on historical precedent, coupled with its application of the “dangerous and unusual” test, strengthens the legal foundation for regulating certain firearms.
As William Kirk and Mark Smith pointed out, while this may not be the outcome many gun rights advocates wanted, it is a crucial step in navigating the legal complexities of the Second Amendment. Future challenges will likely continue to grapple with the balance between personal rights and public safety, and this case is an important reminder of the legal hurdles gun rights advocates face in their quest to expand Second Amendment protections.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
