Background
The defendant appealed his conviction for possessing a machinegun in violation of Section nine hundred twenty-two of Title eighteen of the United States Code. He argued that the statute violates the Second Amendment on its face. The government moved for summary affirmance.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the challenge for plain error because the defendant did not raise the constitutional issue in the district court. The court relied on its binding precedent in United States versus Alsenat, which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of machineguns under District of Columbia versus Heller. The court found the government’s position clearly right as a matter of law, making summary disposition appropriate.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the constitutionality of federal bans on machinegun possession and confirms that summary affirmance is available when an appeal is frivolous or the law is clearly settled.