United States v. Gravel
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12427
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Gravel stole a Colt M-16A1 from a Vermont State Police cruiser in August 2008; weapon originally designed to fire automatically but modified to semi-automatic before theft.
- Gravel pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2).
- The district court applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5) because the weapon was designed to shoot automatically and could be restored to full auto.
- The central issue at sentencing was whether the Colt M-16A1 was a machinegun under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), triggering the enhancement.
- Evidence showed the weapon was designed to shoot automatically; removal of the auto sear disabled auto fire but did not change its original design.
- The panel affirmed the sentence, holding the weapon remains a machinegun for purposes of the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Colt M-16A1 a machinegun under §5845(b)? | Gravel - weapon not machinegun since post-manufacture mod disabled auto fire. | Gravel - but the weapon was designed to fire automatically originally. | Yes; weapon is a machinegun under design prong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collazo s v. United States, 368 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (design meaning linked to original manufacture)
- United States v. TRW Rifle 7.62X51mm Caliber, Model 14, 447 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2006) (design features enabling automatic fire by modification)
- United States v. TRW Model 14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2005) (recognizes 'designed' prong includes preexisting design features)
- S.W. Daniel, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 253 (11th Cir. 1987) (describes design-based machinegun concepts)
- F.J. Vollmer Co. v. Magaw, 102 F.3d 591 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (discusses once-a-machinegun concept and design origin)
- United States v. Moore, 919 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1990) (inoperable machinegun still a machinegun)