Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
The long-standing federal ban on newly made machine guns is heading back into court.
A Texas shooting organization and several of its members have filed a federal lawsuit challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The law that makes it illegal for civilians to possess machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
The case, Temple Gun Club v. Bondi, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It argues that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it enacted the restriction.
The plaintiffs include the Temple Gun Club, a Texas nonprofit with more than 1,000 members, along with three individual members: a U.S. Army veteran, a licensed gunsmith, and a longtime firearms enthusiast.
Their argument is straightforward: the Constitution gives Congress limited powers, and banning the mere possession of a firearm, without any connection to interstate commerce, goes beyond those powers.
SEE ALSO: This Tiny .380 Might Be California’s Best Carry Gun
The lawsuit targets the so-called Hughes Amendment, which was added to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act in 1986. That amendment froze the civilian machine gun registry. Allowing private citizens to own only machine guns registered before the cutoff date.
Today, that means legally transferable machine guns are limited to a finite pool. Often costing tens of thousands of dollars on the collector market.
The plaintiffs say the federal government never had the authority to impose that ban in the first place.
According to the complaint, § 922(o) criminalizes the possession of post-1986 machine guns even when the firearm has no connection to interstate commerce, which is the constitutional power Congress typically relies on when regulating firearms.
The lawsuit also asks courts to revisit a key precedent: United States v. Knutson (1997). In that case, the Fifth Circuit upheld the machine gun ban under the Commerce Clause.
But the plaintiffs argue that recent legal developments, along with skepticism expressed by several Fifth Circuit judges, mean the precedent deserves a fresh look.
SEE ALSO: Iron Sights vs Red Dots: The Case You Forgot
Among the individual plaintiffs is Jeffrey Howard, a retired U.S. Army Sergeant Major who served for 26 years and now leads the Temple Gun Club. The complaint says he and the other plaintiffs are law-abiding gun owners who would acquire or manufacture post-1986 machine guns if the law were struck down.
The lawsuit doesn’t challenge the broader National Firearms Act itself. Even if the ban were overturned, machine guns would still be subject to the NFA’s strict registration and tax requirements.
Instead, the case zeroes in on a narrower question: whether Congress had the constitutional authority to outlaw the possession of newly manufactured machine guns altogether.
“It’s never too late to claw back liberties that the federal government has stolen,” TPPF Attorney Laura Beth Latimer said in the press release. “The Commerce Clause does not give Congress unlimited power to regulate simple possession of anything. This case is a first step toward reclaiming rights that Congress never had the power to take away.”
If the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, it could reopen one of the most controversial chapters in federal gun law. And potentially allow civilians to legally register new machine guns for the first time in nearly 40 years.
For now, the case is just getting started. But given the current legal climate surrounding gun rights, it’s one that we’ll be watching closely. Stay tuned.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
well since criminals are allowed to have them without repercussions the playing field needs to be leveled! i wish i could afford one if they come available. i’m not sure if my colt m4 lower would be upgradable with just a trigger assy? as for collateral damage the left with their policies put us in this position so blame them if something goes wrong!!!
The people in power including the courts both Conservative and Liberal know that it is firearms that are their most dangerous enemy. They will never consent to overturning a 1934 law that has been on the books that long. And they also know that the first time a nut case would machine gun a crowd the political fallout from the general population would result in all of them being impeached faster than a cat can jump off of a tin roof.
Now who is sounding like a right-wing maniac?
No no no no no no. Machine guns – full auto – are too dangerous. American streets and schools are already warzones. Full auto fire is less accurate which makes the damage more indiscriminate. If anything, public welfare and public safety demand keeping the NFA items tightly regulated, chief among them full auto weapons!
Machine guns are no more dangerous than any other firearm. To claim otherwise is just emotional hyperbole. The intent of the user is what we should be concerned with.
There are those who have already modified firearms with cheap Chinese switches who are running in the streets shooting, and the charges are almost nonexistent when they are caught. The enforcement is lacking from the DA’s who should making these charges and referring them for Federal charges.
sledge, I absolutely agree that the enforcement is lacking for violations of firearm laws. These are serious federal issues and should be handled as such.
When DAs don’t refer those charges to the Feds or when they lower charges it does not help society at all.