“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.”
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.”
By Darwin Nercesian
