Lawyers seeking to invalidate a Wisconsin-based YouTube celebrity’s gun crime indictment are citing a recent Supreme Court decision over gun rights, calling the state’s 78-year-old law regulating machine guns unconstitutional.
Attorneys for Matthew Hoover, a Wisconsin gun dealer whose YouTube channel has nearly 151,000 subscribers, have asked a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to dismiss his January indictment with Clay County, Florida, resident Kristopher Ervin, who was charged last year with selling illegal machine gun conversion equipment online.
Hoover’s lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard earlier this month to rule that the National Firearms Act, a 1934 law restricting machine gun ownership by creating a tax license requirement on them, is at odds with the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear firearms.
Kaelan Deese
July 19, 2022
Celebrity YouTuber cites Supreme Court gun ruling in bid to dismiss machine gun charges
[This is a little bit earlier than I would have liked to see a challenge to machine gun law. I would prefer we had “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines securely protected then work our way on to suppressors and finally machine guns.—Joe]
Yeah, it may be better to build on as strong a legal foundation as possible, but I understand that a legal team whose priority is protecting their client from criminal penalties may decide that the best defense is ‘going for the throat’ instead of nibbling around the edges.
They may have done their due diligence and know that the judge has the intestinal and testicular fortitude to take the Bruen decision’s ‘text and history’ and dismiss the charge after ruling the NFA is unconstitutional, which would be very nice. And even if he doesn’t, they’ve raised the point during the initial judicial process and IIRC that’s a requirement for the Circuit Court to consider it as a part of an appeal.
I’ve been following this case, because I watch his channel sometimes.
My understanding is that this is over a thin metal card that has, printed on it, the shapes of the parts you are not supposed to have.
Not actually cutting anything out. He never actually did anything illegal, as far as I can tell, and isn’t exactly being accused of it either.
Which brings a 1A element into this case, in addition to the ATF seems (I haven’t heard their side) to really be stretching their definitions awfully far.
Interestingly he is (or was before this incident, anyway) also a Class 3 FFL.
Like the previous poster, I think he’s got a decent 1st amendment case; his defense on 2nd amendment grounds is less clear.
Well, can’t you just order those from China? Someone did. 10,000 of them. And CBP found them enroute. Anyone heard another word about it?
Nobody seemed to make a big deal out of it then, what gives now?
And to set the record straight for Joke Biden. Not only could you buy a black-powder cannon when the 2A was ratified.
You can still buy them today. Or build one for yourself. No license needed, or even demanded. What a putz.
As for full-auto? As Joe points out, emotional communism still rules the day. But no matter. As a defense the 2A is the ground we should be fighting on all along.
Government has nothing to say about the keeping and bearing of arms.
So, how we store them, or pack them around with us, is none of anyone’s damn business.
An amendment amends all that was written before it. Thus, congresses power to regulate commerce, or tax, has been restricted as well by the 2A.
And any emergency powers are abased by the infringement clause.
Anything to the contrary is, “not, with, standing”. Anywhere. In court or on your front porch.
It’s far past time we stood on those principals.
The Lawyer for Mathew has a YouTube channel called FuddBusters. He went over this particular filing and pointed out that the part about the attack on the NFA isn’t really the primary point of this pleading.
When doing this sort of pleading it is suppose to be “deep”(I think I got that word correct). So the filing starts with things that are specific to this client, in this particular situation, in this particular case. It then moves outwards a little bit and pleads on that point.
They really have no expectation that the case is going to get past the “Mathew isn’t guilty of the crime he is accused of.” and won’t come close to constitutional issues.
Interesting. Regardless of how it goes in this case, it is good to see some people exercising their ostensibly guaranteed rights to some extent, rather than pissing their pants over what the criminalized feds (or federalized criminals) might do.
I do see that the criminals-with-title have been slowly but inexorably painting themselves into the proverbial corner. Eventually they’ll be crying for the mountains and rocks to fall on them and hide them from the terrifying face of judgement (Revelation 6:16).
Therefore the message to the politicians, justices, bureau employees, et al, who’ve been fighting against our fundamental laws of the land, is this; repent of your ways while you still have a change. Give up your criminal behavior, and speak out against it, and expose those fellow perpetrators who refuse to repent. Some of you have inside knowledge which could help the cause of liberty tremendously, and it would demonstrate your earnestness to give them up as you change your criminal ways!
“I would prefer we had “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines securely protected then work our way on to suppressors and finally machine guns.—Joe”
I tend to agree that this is the most likely to succeed route, but sometimes the Hail Mary works.
We might get lucky!
Even better for me that this appears to be happening in Florida, so even a circuit win is good news here.
If MGs suddenly became less restricted it would make the other restrictions even les tenable than they are now