Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Hernandez Reyes moved before trial to dismiss Count One of the indictment, which charged a violation of the possession prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). That statute generally makes it unlawful to transfer or possess a machinegun.
Reyes argued that § 922(o) violates the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The court considered the challenge under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(1), taking the indictment’s allegations as true.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Mark T. Pittman denied Reyes’s motion. The court held that binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both constitutional arguments: United States v. Knutson upheld § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause, and United States v. Wilson, applying Hollis v. Lynch, rejected a facial Second Amendment challenge.
The court also rejected Reyes’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, the relevant inquiry was limited to facts pertinent to the offense’s elements, including the characteristics of the machinegun conversion devices. The court found no basis to conclude that § 922(o) was unconstitutional as applied to Reyes.
Key Takeaways
- Section 922(o)’s prohibition on machinegun possession remains enforceable in the Fifth Circuit.
- District courts must follow Fifth Circuit precedent upholding § 922(o) against Commerce Clause and facial Second Amendment challenges.
- The court found the alleged machinegun conversion-device conduct presented a straightforward application of the statute.
Why It Matters
The order confirms that defendants in the Northern District of Texas cannot obtain dismissal of § 922(o) charges on arguments already rejected by controlling Fifth Circuit authority. It also illustrates the constrained scope of an as-applied Second Amendment challenge at the pretrial stage when the alleged conduct concerns machinegun conversion devices.