On September 11, 2025, a three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Courtroom of Appeals heard oral arguments within the controversial case of United States v. Matthew Hoover and Kristopher Ervin—a case that’s drawn nationwide consideration from gun rights advocates and authorized students alike.
Background: The AutoKeyCard and the Prices
Kristopher Ervin designed and offered the AutoKeyCard, a metallic card etched with the define of a lightning hyperlink—a tool that, when correctly machined and paired with the appropriate AR-15 bolt provider group, can simulate full-auto hearth. In line with Ervin, the product was meant to be a political assertion in opposition to gun management, not a useful firearm part.
Matthew Hoover, higher identified for his CRS Firearms YouTube channel, promoted the AutoKeyCard on his platform however was not concerned in its manufacture or gross sales. He did, nonetheless, launch a fundraiser for Ervin’s authorized protection after the ATF got here knocking. Prosecutors claimed that the fundraiser itself was a part of a broader conspiracy to renew AutoKeyCard gross sales.
Each males have been convicted in 2023 of trafficking in machine weapons, despite the fact that the District Courtroom barred any point out of the Second Modification of their protection and instructed the jury that the AutoKeyCard was a machine gun beneath the legislation.
Attraction Arguments within the Eleventh Circuit
Throughout the attraction, Valerie Lennon represented Ervin, whereas Matthew Larosiere represented Hoover. The three-judge panel included:
Chief Decide William Pryor (George W. Bush appointee),
Decide Nancy Abudu (Joe Biden appointee, former SPLC lawyer),
Decide Elizabeth Department (Donald Trump appointee).
AutoKeyCard vs. On a regular basis Objects
Lennon opened with a strong visible: holding up an Apple titanium bank card and evaluating it to the AutoKeyCard. Decide Pryor challenged that comparability instantly, arguing that the AutoKeyCard was particularly etched to resemble a machine gun half.
She countered that even beneath the federal definition of a “machine gun conversion gadget,” a single metallic card with etchings doesn’t meet the brink for being a mix of elements. Decide Pryor retorted: “The jury thought in any other case.”
Rule of Lenity and First Modification Issues
When Lennon invoked the rule of lenity—which favors the defendant when a statute is ambiguous—Decide Pryor tried to close it down, claiming ambiguity doesn’t equate to vagueness. Lennon stood her floor, arguing that the legislation doesn’t cowl precursor supplies.
Decide Abudu raised the Vanderstok case, the place the Supreme Courtroom dominated that unfinished firearm kits might be thought-about firearms. Lennon responded that finishing an AutoKeyCard right into a functioning lightning hyperlink requires considerably extra effort and extra elements than ending a Polymer80 body.
Pryor additionally questioned whether or not Hoover’s First Modification rights have been related, suggesting that “speech doesn’t defend crime,” seemingly accusing Hoover’s YouTube content material of inciting unlawful conduct.
Larosiere: “A Drawing Isn’t a Machine Gun”
When it was Larosiere’s flip to argue for Hoover, he got here out swinging: “It’s absurd to counsel a drawing on a card constitutes a machine gun.”
Pryor pushed again, saying the drawing was etched to scale. Larosiere reminded the courtroom that ATF Firearms Examiner Cody Toy needed to reduce exterior the strains and nonetheless couldn’t get the gadget to perform correctly. He additionally emphasised that one etched card doesn’t meet the authorized customary for a “mixture of elements.”
Abudu challenged this, implying it was greater than only a drawing. When requested the place the authorized line is drawn, Larosiere couldn’t outline an actual threshold—however was clear that it have to be greater than a single etched card.
Authorities Response: All About “Intent”
Federal prosecutor Gregory Kehoe leaned arduous on Hoover’s YouTube commentary, particularly a line about “scratching the full-auto itch,” claiming it was proof of prison intent.
Kehoe likened the AutoKeyCard to IKEA furnishings—a equipment you assemble with directions—saying it didn’t matter that it wasn’t absolutely useful. What mattered, he argued, was intent.
Kehoe additionally tried to downplay Firearms Examiner Toy’s testimony, calling him a novice—conveniently omitting that Toy is a former Marine Corps armorer. Larosiere pointed this out throughout the rebuttal.
When Decide Pryor requested Kehoe the identical query he had requested the protection—at what level does a bit of metallic turn out to be a machine gun half?—Kehoe had no reply.
What’s Subsequent?
There’s no set timeline for the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. If the attraction is denied, Hoover and Ervin might request an en banc listening to or take their case on to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.
