A federal court found the nation’s ban on machine guns unconstitutional. Now before the 5th Circuit, several groups have filed a pair of amici in support of the lower court’s ruling.

Justin Bryce Brown was convicted of being in possession of an unregistered machine gun. A federal district court found that the ban was unconstitutional because the federal government was unable to prove the ban is consistent with regulations from 1791. Now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, amici briefs have been filed in support of the district court’s ruling. The National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation filed one brief. And, Gun Owners of America, et.al. filed another.

“Looking to history, the government is correct insofar as the only historical tradition the Supreme Court has identified that can justify an arms ban is on arms that are both ‘dangerous and unusual,’” the NRA, FPC, and FPCAF brief says. “Thus, to meet its burden, the government must establish that the arms at issue are both ‘dangerous and unusual.’ The district court correctly determined that the government has failed to do so here. Primarily, the government failed to demonstrate that machineguns are “unusual” today and instead sought to rely on decades old dicta to meet a test rooted in today.

Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said that, “The Fifth Circuit should fully and faithfully apply the Supreme Court’s controlling Second Amendment test. The government did not meet its burden in this case, and the district court’s dismissal should be affirmed.”

In their release, FPC extended their thanks to attorneys Joseph G.S. Greenlee and Erin M. Erhardt of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, as well as FPCAF’s Wisniewski, for “their excellent work on this important brief.”

The Gun Owners of America brief takes a different approach. The filing observes that: “The government does not allege that Mr. Brown committed any violent act, engaged in any other criminal activity, or caused a disturbance with his unregistered machinegun, or that he ever publicly carried it outside his home.” The brief further notes that the special status of the home has “constitutional and historical significance.”

This assertion is important, as the brief points out that: “[T]he government relies on historical regulation of the public carry for improper use” of the machine gun.

“GOA just filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Brown defending the right of Americans to own machine guns. The government wants to imprison a man for peacefully possessing a modified AR-15 in his own home—something the district court rightly struck down,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told Bearing Arms. “GOA argues that machine guns aren’t inherently dangerous or unusual, and that the Founders would’ve seen them as vital tools for resisting tyranny. If the government can ban the most effective arms in the sanctity of one’s home, then the Second Amendment is no right at all. That’s why this case matters.”

The brief filed by GOA was joined by a litany of of groups: Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation, Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, the Heller Foundation, America’s Future, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

"CNJFO is proud to partner with other Second Amendment organizations across the country on the amicus brief in this important case,” said Theresa Inacker, one of the trustees of the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners. “We are pleased to participate in these important matters. There is strength in unity."

While the challenge to the federal statute is an as applied challenge, this case will have severe national implications on how federal firearm laws are handled going forward. With precedent finding a law unconstitutional specifically because of the government’s inability to meet the burden of proof of the defendant’s wrongdoing, we’ll be seeing the proper application of one of the often ignored standards outlined in Bruen.

It might seem like this case is about machine guns, but it really is so much bigger than that. This is a developing story and we’ll be reporting further on the status of United States v. Brown as information becomes available.