The Third Circuit just ruled that machine guns qualify as protected “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment—and then upheld the federal machine-gun ban anyway.
How can this be the same federal appeals court that recently struck down New Jersey’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines?
Mark Walters delivers a complete, plain-English breakdown of United States v. Berger and explains why these two Third Circuit decisions are not technically contradictory. The court drew a sharp constitutional line between fully automatic machine guns and the millions of AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles lawfully possessed by peaceable Americans.
But the ruling still contains serious danger for gun owners.
Mark exposes the circular logic behind the court’s “common use” analysis: the federal government severely restricts civilian ownership, creates artificial scarcity, waits decades—and then points to that government-created scarcity as proof that the firearm is not commonly owned.
If that reasoning stands, a government that bans an arm early enough could make the prohibition permanent.
The episode also examines the court’s treatment of suppressors and its conclusion that “objective” and “minimally burdensome” registration requirements do not infringe the Second Amendment. Mark explains why allowing judges and bureaucrats to decide that a fee, delay, fingerprinting requirement or government registry is too minor to receive constitutional scrutiny could create an enormous Bruen loophole.
• Why machine guns passed the first step of the Bruen test
• The meaning of “dangerous and unusual”
• Why the phrase is “dangerous AND unusual”—not “dangerous OR unusual”
• The difference between an AR-15 and an M16
• Why semiautomatic fire is not automatic fire
• How the federal government closed the civilian machine-gun registry in 1986
• Why lawful ownership numbers matter under the “common use” test
• The weaknesses in the Third Circuit’s historical analysis
• Why the ruling does not revive bans on AR-15s or standard-capacity magazines
• How the decision may actually strengthen the constitutional distinction protecting commonly owned semiautomatic firearms
• Why suppressor registration may be the most consequential part of the opinion
The machine-gun challenge lost—but the constitutional case against bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines did not.
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights—not the Bill of Needs.
Subscribe to Armed American Radio for daily Second Amendment news, gun-rights court decisions and constitutional analysis delivered in plain English.
Monday–Friday: 4–5 p.m. ET
YouTube, Facebook and Rumble: @ArmedAmericanRadio
#SecondAmendment #GunRights #MachineGunBan #UnitedStatesVBerger #ThirdCircuit #Bruen #AR15 #Suppressors #NFA #GunControl #SCOTUS #ArmedAmericanRadio
The post 09-10-26 Encore Machine Gun Ban Upheld appeared first on Armed American Radio.