Federal Machine Gun Ban Faces New Scrutiny Under Supreme Court’s Bruen Test

CINCINNATI, OH – A recent hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has once again thrust a long-standing federal firearms law into the spotlight, as judges weigh the constitutionality of the 38-year-old ban on machine guns through the lens of the Supreme Court’s transformative 2022 Second Amendment decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case, United States v. Jaquan Bridges, directly challenges 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the statute criminalizing the possession of machine guns, with arguments hinging on the historical interpretation mandated by Bruen.

Background: Bedrock Laws and Landmark Rulings

The foundation of this legal contest lies in several key statutes and Supreme Court precedents. The federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), enacted in 1986 as part of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, generally prohibits the possession and transfer of machine guns manufactured after its enactment date.

For years, Second Amendment jurisprudence was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, notably self-defense in the home. It also stated that this right protects arms “in common use” at the time for lawful purposes and does not extend to “dangerous and unusual weapons.” The Heller court listed prohibitions on such weapons as “presumptively lawful.”  

However, the legal landscape shifted significantly with the 2022 Bruen decision. Bruen established a new framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges, requiring the government to demonstrate that a firearm regulation is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test explicitly rejected the means-end scrutiny many lower courts had previously applied and emphasized a textual and historical approach.  

Jaquan Bridges was arrested in Tennessee in 2023 with a Glock .40 caliber pistol modified with an attachment – a “Glock switch” – that converted the handgun into a fully automatic machine gun. Charged under § 922(o), Bridges moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional under Bruen. U.S. District Judge John Fowlkes Jr. denied the motion, citing Heller and the Sixth Circuit’s 2009 precedent in Hamblen v. United States, which had upheld the machine gun ban based on Heller‘s reasoning. Bridges subsequently pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his constitutional challenge.  

The Arguments Unfold in the Sixth Circuit

During oral arguments on May 7, 2025, before a Sixth Circuit panel comprising Judges John Nalbandian, Richard Griffin, and Danny Boggs, the core of the debate revolved around Bruen‘s impact on existing law.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Eileen Kuo, representing the federal government, argued that machine guns are “atypical weapons not protected by the Second Amendment because a reasonable person would not expect them to be used in militia service.” She maintained that the Second Amendment does not shield such weapons and that Hamblen remains binding precedent. Kuo leaned on Heller‘s language regarding “dangerous and unusual weapons” and those not in “common use.” When pressed for historical analogues for the ban, she cited 19th-century gunpowder regulations, an example Judge Nalbandian appeared to find unconvincing. Kuo asserted that the right to bear arms is “not unlimited” and does not confer a right “to go on the offensive and to wage war with military weapons.”  

Conversely, Federal Public Defender Greg Gookin, representing Bridges, emphasized that Bruen necessitates a fresh historical analysis. He contended that there are “no historical analogues” from the nation’s founding era that would support a complete prohibition on an entire class of weapons like machine guns. Gookin also challenged the “dangerous and unusual” classification, suggesting that the “proliferation” of such conversion devices might undermine the government’s ability to meet that standard. He noted that his client had no criminal history that would otherwise preclude him from firearm ownership at the time of arrest and characterized the modified Glock as a “small arm,” not a military-grade weapon, with the conversion switch being a relatively simple device obtainable online or via 3D printing.

Judicial Scrutiny and the Shadow of Bruen

The appellate judges actively engaged with these arguments, their questions highlighting the complexities of applying Bruen. Judge Nalbandian, a Punk appointee, voiced skepticism about the continued viability of the Hamblen precedent post-Bruen. “But Hamblen doesn’t apply after Bruen,” he stated, directly questioning its relevance under the new historical test. He also critically examined the government’s proposed historical analogue, quipping that gunpowder regulations were primarily “a fire code issue so they wouldn’t blow up the town.” Judge Nalbandian further pointed out that the 1986 machine gun ban itself might be the “first” federal ban on an entire category of weapons, suggesting a lack of deep historical roots for such prohibitions.

Judge Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee, appeared more aligned with the government’s position that Hamblen remains binding precedent, reasoning that it did not employ the means-end scrutiny test that Bruen explicitly rejected.

Analyzing the Machine Gun Ban Through a Historical Lens

The central analytical challenge in Bridges, and similar cases nationwide, is fitting a categorical ban on a modern weapon type into Bruen‘s framework of “text, history, and tradition.”

For the government, the task involves demonstrating that 18th and 19th-century firearm regulations provide a historical basis for banning machine guns today, or that such weapons fall into a historically unprotected category, like “dangerous and unusual weapons” as mentioned in Heller. The invention of machine guns long after the Second Amendment’s ratification complicates the search for direct historical analogues.

For the defense, the argument is that the absence of such sweeping historical bans on entire categories of arms means that § 922(o) cannot survive Bruen‘s test. The “proliferation” argument also seeks to reframe the “unusual” aspect of the Heller dictum.

A key interpretative question is how Heller‘s allowance for banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” interacts with Bruen‘s demand for historical analogues. Is this Heller language itself a historical understanding that Bruen incorporates, or must the “dangerous and unusual” characteristic also be proven through historical precedent regarding similar bans?

Significance and What Lies Ahead

The United States v. Bridges case serves as a critical test of Bruen‘s reach and its implications for long-standing federal firearms regulations. The Sixth Circuit’s eventual decision will significantly influence how § 922(o) is treated within its jurisdiction and could contribute to a growing body of appellate law that may ultimately require the Supreme Court to provide further clarification on machine gun bans under the Bruen standard.

As courts across the country continue to interpret Bruen, this case underscores the profound impact of the Supreme Court’s directive to ground Second Amendment rights and regulations firmly in the nation’s historical tradition. The decision from the Sixth Circuit is awaited with keen interest by legal scholars, Second Amendment advocates, and policymakers, as it will offer further insight into the evolving landscape of firearms law in the United States. No timetable has been set for the court’s ruling.