The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision, upholding the conviction of Isaac Bishop Charles for possessing a machine gun. Charles had argued that the federal law prohibiting machine gun possession, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), violated his Second Amendment rights. The court disagreed, citing a previous ruling on the matter and conducting its own analysis of the law.
The Case’s Background
The case began with a traffic stop in Arkansas on July 10, 2023. An officer pulled over Charles’s vehicle due to an illegible temporary license plate. The officer smelled marijuana and, after a search, discovered marijuana and a Glock model 26 pistol modified to operate as a fully automatic machine gun. Charles was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a machine gun. He later pled guilty to the charge.
The Legal Challenge: Second Amendment Concerns
Before sentencing, Charles filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that Section 922(o) was unconstitutional. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Rahimi* (2024), which addressed Second Amendment rights. The district court denied Charles’s motion, and he appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit.
The Court’s Reasoning: Precedent and Analysis
The Eighth Circuit began by stating that it reviews the constitutionality of a statute *de novo* – meaning it examines the issue anew. The court then addressed Charles’s challenge to Section 922(o) on its face, meaning he was arguing the law is unconstitutional in all its applications. To succeed in this type of challenge, Charles needed to show that the law is invalid under any circumstance.
Prior Ruling: *United States v. Fincher*
The court relied heavily on a previous Eighth Circuit case, *United States v. Fincher* (2008). In *Fincher*, the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 922(o), concluding that machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and are considered dangerous and unusual weapons. The court in the Charles case noted that the *Fincher* ruling was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in *District of Columbia v. Heller* (2008), which established the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.
The Impact of *Bruen* and *Rahimi*
Charles argued that the Supreme Court’s subsequent rulings in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen* (2022) and *Rahimi* (2024) had undermined *Fincher*. The court, however, stated that *Bruen* reaffirmed the “common use for self-defense” rationale from *Heller*. The *Bruen* decision also clarified the proper two-step analysis for Second Amendment cases: (1) Does the Second Amendment’s plain text cover the individual’s conduct? (2) If so, can the government justify its regulation based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation? The court found that even applying this framework, Charles’s challenge failed.
The Court’s Novel Argument: “Bearable” Weapons
The court then presented an alternative argument for why the law was constitutional. It pointed out that the definition of “machine gun” under federal law includes weapons that are not “bearable” – meaning they cannot be readily carried by an individual. The court cited examples like the Mark 38 machine gun system mounted on warships, the M230 machine gun on military helicopters, and the M2 machine gun mounted on armored vehicles. The court reasoned that since the law regulates machine guns that are not “bearable,” the law is constitutional in at least some of its applications.
Concurrence and Dissent
Chief Judge Colloton, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the outcome but argued that the court should have affirmed the district court’s decision based solely on the precedent set by *Fincher*. He found the majority’s new argument unnecessary and potentially unfair to Charles, as he did not have the opportunity to address that specific point. Chief Judge Colloton also raised concerns about the broad interpretation of the term “weapon” and whether it should include large mounted military systems.
The Ruling’s Significance
The Eighth Circuit’s decision reinforces the existing legal precedent regarding machine gun possession in the circuit. It demonstrates the court’s commitment to following its prior rulings and applying the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. However, the concurring opinion highlights the complexities and potential disagreements within the court regarding the interpretation and application of Second Amendment rights.