Background
In January two thousand twenty-five, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Deyonte’ Xavian Betties for possessing and transferring a pistol equipped with a machinegun conversion device. Betties moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the charges violated his Second Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, concluding the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess a machinegun or its conversion device. Betties pleaded guilty to the first count, and the government dropped the second. The district court sentenced him to forty months’ imprisonment, and he appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit noted that it squarely addressed and rejected the argument that a modified machinegun is neither dangerous nor unusual in United States v. Alsenat. The court held that machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment as weapons in common use for lawful purposes. This precedent binds the court under the prior-panel rule. Consequently, the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment as weapons in common use for lawful purposes
United States v. Alsenat, 174 F.4th 45, 46 (11th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the prohibition on possessing machinegun conversion devices under Section nineteen hundred and twenty-two of Title eighteen of the United States Code, confirming that such weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection.