Background
A grand jury indicted Maxon Alsenat for knowingly possessing a machinegun conversion device under 18 United States Code Section 922 subsection o paragraph 1. Alsenat moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute violated the Second Amendment as applied to adult citizens with no felony convictions. The district court denied the motion, ruling that machineguns are not in common use and are dangerous and unusual. Alsenat subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the constitutionality of the statute de novo. Citing District of Columbia versus Heller, the court noted that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court found that machineguns are best suited for criminal purposes and have historically been regulated as dangerous and unusual weapons. The court observed that at least thirty-five jurisdictions strictly regulate machinegun possession and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of such bans. The court concluded that nothing in Bruen or Rahimi altered Heller’s description of the Second Amendment’s scope.
Because machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment as weapons in common use for lawful purposes, we affirm.
USCA11 Case: 24-14058 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 1 of 8
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that federal and state laws banning machineguns remain constitutional and enforceable against non-felons. It establishes that the Second Amendment does not provide a defense for possession of machineguns or conversion devices under current precedent.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download