Gun News

10th Circuit Smacks Down Machine Guns—Why That’s (Weirdly) Good for 2A Right Now ~ VIDEOS

The Tenth Circuit just reversed a lower court and reinstated charges against a man caught with a converted AM-15 and a Glock “switch.” The panel said machine guns aren’t “in common use” for self-defense, ergo… the Second Amendment does not protect them. That outcome isn’t our dream on the merits—but strategically, it’s a win because it keeps a risky machine-gun test case away from the current Supreme Court while we push the cleaner AR-15 and magazine cases.

What The Court Actually Said

The court framed the question at Bruen step one: are machine guns “arms” in common use for self-defense? It answered no and emphasized that possession/use data and common-sense self-defense needs don’t point to full-auto guns. The opinion notes the government can prohibit weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, citing Heller.

…the panel wrote that the defendant failed to show his machine guns are “arms in common use for self-defense.”

In reversing the district court, the panel wrote that the defendant failed to show his machine guns are “arms in common use for self-defense,” and it highlighted that self-defense doesn’t require “firing more than 1,000 rounds per minute.”

Local news outlets are already spinning it this way: in states under the Tenth Circuit (like New Mexico), machine guns aren’t protected for self-defense. That’s a narrow, case-specific takeaway—but it’s how the public is hearing it.

Why Pro-2A Folks Shouldn’t Panic

Bad facts make bad law. This case involved a criminal defendant, a converted rifle, and a Glock switch on video. That’s NOT the plaintiff profile we want setting national Second Amendment precedent.
A Supreme Court machine-gun case right now is high-risk. If SCOTUS took a full-auto case today, the most likely result would be a broad loss that anti-gun states would weaponize against semi-autos and standard magazines. Let this one stay a circuit decision. (Reuters rightly reported how the panel leaned on Heller’s “dangerous and unusual” lane.)
Keep eyes on the real prize. The cleanest path is winning that AR-15s and standard-capacity mags are in common use for lawful purposes, which locks in protection for the most popular rifles and gear in America. Heller / Bruen already points there; we need the right plaintiffs and records.

The Court’s Method (and Why It’s Messy)

The Tenth Circuit treated “common use for self-defense” like a threshold plain-text question instead of a historical question the government must justify—an approach many scholars and courts dispute. Even so, the Judicial panel leaned on Heller’s carve-outs and the historical “dangerous and unusual” concept to keep § 922(o) intact. Net effect: The result stands, and the reasoning is debatable, but it doesn’t rewrite Bruen nationwide.

What This Means For You (For Now)

Nothing changes about semi-autos. This case is about machine guns and switches—not your AR-15, not your Glock, not your mags.
Full-auto stays off-limits to civilians made after 1986. That’s been the landscape for decades, and this decision keeps it that way in the Tenth Circuit.
Separate wins are still happening. The same Tenth Circuit recently knocked down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period—proof that Bruen is still moving the ball downfield on core carry/purchase rights even if machine guns remain out of bounds.

Bottom Line

If you were hoping for a green light on full-auto, this isn’t it.

But for the broader Second Amendment fight, keeping a messy machine-gun case away from SCOTUS while we line up better plaintiffs and cleaner records on AR-15s and magazines is the smarter play. Win the battles that protect what millions of law-abiding Americans actually own and carry every day—and don’t let a bad-facts case set the rules for all of us.