Machine-gun charges tied to Orange Park man not dismissed despite new Supreme Court ruling
A U.S. Supreme Court decision defending gun owners’ Second Amendment rights didn’t invalidate a law regulating machine guns or the basis for a gun-crime indictment against a YouTube celebrity and an Orange Park man, a federal judge has concluded.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard keeps attorneys preparing for a trial, currently scheduled for January, to decide whether Clay County business owner Kristopher “Justin” Ervin and Wisconsin gun dealer Matthew Hoover illegally sold unregistered devices for converting mounds of semiautomatic rifles into fully automatic machine guns.
An indictment issued this summer described Ervin paying a machine shop early last year to create 3,600 small metal cards he sold under the brand name Auto Key Card, using ads on a YouTube channel Hoover operated that had 171,000 subscribers as of Friday.
Is an AR-15 an assault rifle? What you need to know about America's most popular rifle
Tragedy in Uvalde sparks a familiar debate: Are guns the problem, or the solution?
Prosecutors said the cards could be used to convert AR-15 style rifles into machine guns and that selling them without registering them like machine guns — making them subject to expensive government regulation — violated federal law.
But Hoover’s lawyers argued in July that a recent Supreme Court ruling on a gun-control lawsuit, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, had the effect of invalidating machine gun restrictions dating back to the landmark National Firearms Act of 1934.
If the regulations weren’t valid, the lawyers said Hoover’s indictment had to be dismissed.
But Howard saw things differently.
“Hoover provides no basis for concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen would undermine this line of authority,” Howard ruled this week, adding that “his argument is unavailing.”
The judge said prosecutors had rightly pointed out that the Supreme Court case didn’t overturn its ruling on an earlier case, D.C. v. Heller, which judges had relied on before when “the Court suggested that it would be ‘startling’ for the Second Amendment to protect machineguns.”
Howard said the Supreme Court ruling on Heller “noted that the Second Amendment ‘only protects the right to own certain weapons.’” That ruling didn’t include a list of which weapons were or weren’t protected, but a string of courts since then had agreed that machine guns weren’t protected by the Second Amendment.
This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Judge rejects bid to dismiss machine-gun case tied to Florida man