Constitutional Challenges to the Machine Gun Ban

Remember back in fourth grade history when we learned why the Articles of Confederation didn’t work? The Constitution came along to fix some major problems, like how states had a tough time trading with each other. States often imposed taxes or restrictions to protect their own interests.

This backdrop explains why Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce in Article I of the Constitution.

But challenges to the machine gun ban go beyond just one law’s survival. They raise deeper questions about whether the constitutional structure still limits government power.

As a kid, I thought this stuff was pretty straightforward. But, honestly, decades of court cases have made it way more complex. Key questions about the Commerce Clause linger. Just how much power does it really give Congress?

For example, can Congress compel you to buy health insurance? What if you want to grow wheat in your backyard to make your own bread? And can firearms possession be banned outright?

It’s a bit ironic—I don’t even own a gun, but let’s consider the implications. If that firearm happened to be a machine gun, would the scenario change?

Congress made it illegal in 1986 to transfer or possess machine guns, with some narrow exceptions for military use and for those legally owned before the law took effect. For everyone else, it’s an absolute ban.

One would think the ban would spark a heated debate about whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to prohibit mere possession of machine guns. Surprisingly, it didn’t. The main justification was a comment from Rep. William J. Hughes (D.N.J.), who simply said, “I don’t know why anyone would oppose banning machine guns.”

Hughes didn’t back up his claim with constitutional arguments. He just assumed Congress had the authority and didn’t show any evidence.

The truth is, Congress lacks broad police powers. You can’t create a sweeping national criminal law simply because you want to. That authority largely rests with the states. Congress can only pass criminal laws under specific, enumerated powers.

That’s the core of federalism.

Related: Want a machine gun? Purchases may soon become easier in certain states

So, what’s at stake? It’s about whether Congress can ban mere possession of machine guns or if that authority lies with states and individuals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has tackled this issue before but hasn’t resolved it.

Back in 1997, I recalled sitting in on a full court session for America vs. Kirk. The judges were split—half said banning machine guns exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, while the other half disagreed. Since there wasn’t a majority opinion, it didn’t set a precedent.

A few months later, the court revisited the topic in USA vs. Knutson. This time, three judges believed Congress had the authority to ban machine guns. The larger court offered no comment, but Knutson remained binding precedent.

More recently, Judge Don Willett brought this question back into focus in USA vs. Wilson. He raised concerns about whether Congress really has the constitutional power to ban mere possession of firearms. He described three categories recognized by the Supreme Court: channels of interstate commerce, means of interstate commerce, and activities that significantly affect interstate commerce. Willett argued that simply owning a firearm doesn’t fall into any of those categories.

Willett’s take cuts to the heart of the matter.

If mere possession is considered interstate commerce that Congress can regulate, then federal authority lacks meaningful limits. Essentially, Congress could regulate nearly everything, as long as someone can conjure up economic consequences.

That’s not how constitutional governance should work. It becomes a federal reach without boundaries.

Now, nearly 30 years after Knutson, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Temple Gun Club are looking to reignite this debate. The Temple Gun Club consists of law-abiding citizens who wish for legalize machine gun ownership. They’re not talking about buying guns on the market but about modifying firearms they lawfully own—guns that never traversed state lines.

This situation is about more than just machine guns. It’s really about whether there are still limits to the Commerce Clause. If Congress can outlaw possession of goods that were never bought, sold, or exchanged across state lines—and that don’t materially affect interstate commerce—Congress could end up regulating virtually every aspect of our lives.

Related: When the good guys carry, the murderers lose — and the media often ignores this

Willett made an important point previously. Regarding Wilson, he suggested that the original Founders viewed this gradual expansion of federal authority as a real threat to freedom, rather than an outright takeover.

That resonates. Courts should revert to first principles. They ought to reconsider the machine gun ban and tackle the question Congress sidestepped back in 1986: Does “regulate commerce” still have a clear, narrow meaning, or has it morphed into a blank check for federal control?

Ultimately, challenges to the machine gun ban are not merely about one law’s longevity. They probe whether the Constitution’s design still keeps governmental power in check or if the Tenth Amendment has become a mere relic of history.