Ninth Circuit Upholds Federal Machinegun Restrictions

The Second Modification doesn’t shield machineguns, and it stays unlawful to promote one to an undercover cop.

That was the conclusion a divided three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court docket of Appeals reached on Wednesday. The bulk upheld the conviction of Daniel Matthew Kittson, an Oregon man who transferred a World Battle II–period Russian machine gun to an undercover federal agent. The panel rejected Kittson’s arguments that his switch match inside an exemption for transfers to authorities staff. It additionally held that federal restrictions on the sale or switch of unregistered machineguns don’t violate his gun rights.

“Daniel Matthew Kittson appeals from his conviction for possessing or transferring a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o),” Decide John Owens wrote in US v. Kittson. “We now have jurisdiction underneath 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.”

The choice extends the dropping streak for Second Modification challenges to federal machinegun rules within the aftermath of the Supreme Court docket’s institution of a brand new check for reviewing gun legal guidelines in New York State Rifle and Pistol Affiliation v. Bruen. Though a small handful of district courtroom judges have questioned the rules, federal appeals courts have unanimously upheld them. Wednesday’s determination additional foreclosed the potential for evading prosecution underneath the ban when it is enforced via sting operations.

In January 2020, federal brokers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) realized that Kittson, a convicted felon, was trying to assist dealer the sale of a Russian PPSh-41 machine gun. An undercover federal agent, posing as a firearms and drug trafficker, contacted Kittson, who then organized for a third-party particular person to promote it to the officer. He was finally arrested and charged with illegally possessing and transferring a machine gun, in addition to illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. In August 2023, a jury delivered a break up verdict, acquitting him of the felon-in-possession cost however convicting him of illegally transferring a machine gun. He was sentenced to 27 months in jail.

On enchantment, Kittson highlighted the truth that the legislation he was convicted underneath doesn’t apply to transfers to “the US or any division or company thereof or a State, or a division, company, or political subdivision thereof.” He argued that as a result of the sale he facilitated finally went to a federal agent, it ought to match underneath that exemption.

The panel, nonetheless, decided that his declare ran afoul of a long time of case legislation deciphering comparable firearm statutes in addition to Congress’s intent in passing the federal machinegun ban.

“Construing 922(o)(2)(A) to exempt any machinegun ‘switch’ to undercover brokers—no matter compliance with relevant necessities—would primarily sanction the very conduct Congress supposed to ban and regulate,” Decide Owens, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote. “Such a studying additionally would undermine the objectives of Congress to assist legislation enforcement officers to fight crime. Certainly, what these firearm statutes reveal is what courts have been saying for many years—that the exemptions for transfers cowl solely these transfers ‘approved by the federal government for the advantage of federal, state, or native authorities entities.’”

Kittson additionally challenged his conviction on Second Modification grounds. He argued that machineguns are protected arms underneath the Structure. Nonetheless, the bulk rejected these claims as a result of it stated that prior circuit precedent in 22012’s US v. Henry, which relied on the Supreme Court docket’s dicta on machineguns, remained legitimate legislation regardless that it was determined earlier than Bruen.

“Even when its historic evaluation was not as exhaustive as some might want, Henry faithfully utilized the reasoning in Heller and relied on the Supreme Court docket’s personal discovering of a historic custom of prohibiting the carrying of ‘harmful and strange weapons,’” Owens wrote. “Accordingly, the district courtroom accurately concluded Henry stays binding, and Kittson’s Second Modification problem fails.”

Decide Mary Schroeder, a Jimmy Carter appointee, rounded out the bulk. In the meantime, Decide Lawrence VanDyke dissented from his colleagues.

In a 30-page solo opinion, VanDyke accused his colleagues of going additional than what the plain textual content of the machinegun statute says.

“It’s a bedrock precept of statutory interpretation that each one persons are entitled to the advantage of the legislation as written,” VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote. “That precept is especially weighty right here—the place an unsympathetic felony defendant asks us for nothing greater than the plain utility of a felony statute. As a result of (1) Daniel Kittson transferred a machinegun to the US and (2) Congress expressly didn’t criminalize that conduct, Kittson ought to by no means have been convicted of against the law that doesn’t exist.”

He additionally added that whereas, in his view, there may be sufficient on Kittson’s statutory enchantment to vacate his conviction with out addressing his Second Modification claims, he believes the bulk gave brief shrift to the evaluation required by the Supreme Court docket.

“Though I’d not attain the Second Modification query, in response to the bulk’s evaluation of that challenge I observe solely that it fails to grapple with Bruen’s analogical reasoning requirement and merely assumes that machineguns fall exterior the ambit of constitutionally protected firearms,” he concluded. “That assumption is inappropriate given the Supreme Court docket’s demand that the federal government help firearm rules with historic analogues. It’s particularly inappropriate right here, the place the bulk assumes machinegun possession is overwhelmingly felony in nature with none fact-finding from the district courtroom on that query.”