639 F.Supp.3d 704
N.D. Tex.2022Background
- Defendant Shane Holton indicted (Second Superseding Indictment) on five firearms counts; he moved to dismiss as unconstitutional several counts under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5861(h) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(k).
- Counts One and Two charged violations of § 5861(d) (possession of an unregistered firearm under the National Firearms Act); Count Three charged § 5861(h) (possession of a firearm with obliterated/altered serial number); Count Four charged § 922(k) (possession/receipt/transport of firearm with removed/obliterated serial number tied to interstate commerce).
- Holton argued the three statutes are facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (invoking Bruen) and that § 922(k) also violates the Commerce Clause.
- The Government defended the statutes as consistent with Bruen’s historical-tradition test and invoked circuit precedent on Commerce Clause authority.
- The court applied Bruen’s two-step replacement framework (text then historical analogues), concluded §§ 5861(d) and (h) regulate NFA weapons not protected by the Second Amendment, found § 922(k) likewise consistent with historical analogues, and held the Commerce Clause challenge was foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Court denied Holton’s Motion to Dismiss. (Mem. Op. & Order, signed Nov. 3, 2022, Judge Jane J. Boyle.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 5861(d) and 5861(h) violate the Second Amendment | Gov't: NFA-regulated weapons are not protected arms; statutes valid | Holton: Statutes prohibit possession and therefore burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment | Court: Statutes regulate dangerous/unusual NFA weapons not protected by the Second Amendment; constitutional |
| Whether § 922(k) violates the Second Amendment | Gov't: § 922(k) does not meaningfully burden self‑defense and has historical analogues; constitutional | Holton: § 922(k) criminalizes possession (e.g., removal of serial after lawful purchase) and thus infringes Second Amendment (relies on Price) | Court: § 922(k) does not infringe core possession right; historical analogues (registration, trade controls, taxes) satisfy Bruen; constitutional |
| Whether § 922(k) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power | Gov't: Foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent upholding similar jurisdictional-nexus provisions | Holton: Statute reaches noncommercial activity beyond Commerce Clause authority | Court: Commerce Clause challenge foreclosed by Fifth Circuit authority; rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (Supreme Court 2022) (establishes text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Supreme Court 2008) (recognizes individual right to possess and bear arms and permits longstanding regulations)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court 2010) (applies Second Amendment protections against the states)
- United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (Supreme Court 1992) (describes NFA’s object to regulate weapons likely used for criminal purposes)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (upholds serial-number/possession limits and explains serial numbers do not impair defensive use)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (surveys historical colonial and early-state regulation of the firearms trade)
- Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (Supreme Court 1976) (congressional intent to restrict firearms access to certain dangerous persons)
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholds jurisdictional-nexus firearm prohibitions under the Commerce Clause)