With comments by Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner Youtube.

In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.

The Case: U.S. v. Christopher Chan

The case stems from an incident where Christopher Chan was found in possession of a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. These are firearms that, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), must be registered, and in this case, they weren’t. Chan’s legal team argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that these firearms are “arms” protected by the Constitution. They also challenged the Commerce Clause, arguing that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate the possession of these firearms.

However, Judge Watson’s decision struck down both arguments, claiming that neither the short-barreled rifle nor the machine gun falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing tension between federal gun laws and the constitutional right to bear arms.

Breaking Down the Second Amendment Argument

At the heart of this case is the question: Are machine guns and short-barreled rifles protected by the Second Amendment?

According to Judge Watson, they are not. His reasoning hinges on the idea that these types of firearms are “dangerous and unusual” and not “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.

This logic is shaky. As pro-gun advocates, we know that the Second Amendment is clear about the right to bear arms—period. The Supreme Court has previously defined “arms” as any weapon that can be used for offense or defense. So how does a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle not fit that definition? These firearms are undeniably capable of being used for defense, just like a handgun or a shotgun. But the court claims that because they aren’t commonly used for self-defense, they don’t count as protected “arms.”

The real problem here is that the judge is conflating two different parts of the legal test. After acknowledging that the Second Amendment applies to “arms,” he should have shifted the burden to the government to prove that these firearms can be banned based on historical tradition. Instead, he flipped the script and put the burden on Chan to prove these firearms are in common use. This is a clear misapplication of legal principles set forth by Supreme Court cases like Heller and Bruen.

The Commerce Clause Angle

Chan’s team also tried to argue that Congress overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause by regulating the possession of machine guns. However, Judge Watson shot down this argument as well, citing binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit. Essentially, the court ruled that because prior cases have upheld the federal regulation of machine guns, Chan’s argument didn’t hold water.

While the Commerce Clause has been used to justify all sorts of federal overreach, this case reminds us that the fight for Second Amendment rights often involves pushing back against decades of judicial decisions that have strayed far from the Constitution.

What’s Next?

This ruling is far from the end of the road for Second Amendment advocates. Cases like this one could very well end up before the Supreme Court, where the justices will have the final say on how far the government can restrict our right to bear arms. Until then, rulings like Judge Watson’s are a reminder that the battle to protect the Second Amendment is ongoing.

In the meantime, we need to stay informed and stay involved. Follow updates on cases like this one, support organizations that fight for our gun rights, and make your voice heard in the political arena. The Second Amendment is a fundamental part of American freedom, and it’s up to us to defend it.

U.S. v. Christopher Chan ~ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT OR THE COMMERCE CLAUS…