Malcolm Bezet v. United States
714 F. App'x 336
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Malcolm Bezet (pro se) seeks to convert a semiautomatic pistol he owns into a fully automatic, silenced rifle and challenges several GCA and NFA provisions as unconstitutional, seeking a permanent injunction.
- Challenged statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 922(l), § 922(r), § 922(o) (GCA import/assembly/machinegun bans) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 5811, 5812, 5821, 5822 (NFA transfer/making taxes and registration/application requirements).
- District court dismissed claims against §§ 5811 and 5812 for lack of standing (Rule 12(b)(1)) and dismissed the remainder for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)).
- Bezet alleges he would need to register, pay a $200 tax, and use U.S.-made parts to complete the conversion, and even then § 922(o) would bar possession of a post‑GCA machinegun.
- Fifth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms: Bezet lacks standing to challenge transfer provisions (§§ 5811, 5812); the remaining statutes survive Second Amendment, Necessary and Proper, and Tenth Amendment challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge 26 U.S.C. §§ 5811 & 5812 (transfer tax and registration) | Bezet says transfer taxes/registration indirectly burden him as transferee and increase costs/logistics | Government: those provisions apply to transferors; Bezet hasn’t alleged intent to transfer or attempted to comply with registration | No standing — dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) |
| Second Amendment challenge to § 922(o) (machinegun ban) | Ban infringes firearm rights by preventing conversion/possession | Government: machineguns fall outside Second Amendment scope or are regulable; precedent upholds ban | Claim fails; § 922(o) upheld |
| Second Amendment challenge to §§ 922(l) & 922(r) (import/assembly restrictions) | These restrict access to firearms/parts, including those Bezet seeks | Government: import/assembly rules do not substantially burden the core home‑defense right and survive intermediate scrutiny | Claim fails; provisions upheld |
| Second Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. §§ 5821 & 5822 (making tax/registration) | Tax and registration impede making firearms | Government: taxes and ancillary registration are valid exercises of taxing power; even regulatory burdens are slight and justified | Claim fails; provisions upheld |
| Necessary and Proper / Commerce / Taxing power challenges | Bezet contends statutes exceed enumerated powers or are pretextual | Government: GCA provisions regulate channels/instrumentalities/foreign commerce; NFA provisions are valid exercises of taxing power and registration is ancillary | Claims fail; statutes are rationally related to commerce or taxing powers |
| Tenth Amendment challenge | Federal regulation intrudes on state powers | Government: exercise of enumerated powers negates Tenth Amendment problem | Claim fails; no Tenth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects weapons in common use)
- Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir.) (Second Amendment two‑step framework discussed)
- National Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir.) (intermediate/strict scrutiny guidance)
- United States v. Knutson, 113 F.3d 27 (5th Cir.) (§ 922(o) upheld under Commerce Clause)
- Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (NFA taxes/registration upheld under taxing power)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (limits of Commerce Clause)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258 (5th Cir.) (NFA provisions ancillary to taxing power upheld)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (case-or-controversy/standing principles)