United States v. Matthew Henry, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16615

Henry was convicted of knowingly possessing a machine gun and an auto-sear under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and § 924(a)(2).
Police found a loaded .308 rifle, an empty magazine, and later, machine gun conversion evidence at Henry’s home.
ATF determined Henry had converted the rifle into a machine gun; a federal search warrant uncovered numerous guns, parts, and a machine gun auto-sear.
Henry challenged the conviction on Second Amendment grounds and Commerce Clause authority; the district court denied relief.
The district court held machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment, and § 922(o) is within Congress’s Commerce Clause power; jury found guilty on count 1 and not guilty on count 2.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Second Amendment covers homemade machine guns	Henry argues for a Second Amendment right to possess a homemade machine gun in the home.	Henry contends machine guns are protected as arms under the Second Amendment.	Second Amendment does not protect machine guns.
Whether § 922(o) is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power	Henry contends the statute exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.	The government argues § 922(o) regulates a class of activities with substantial effect on interstate commerce.	Statute is a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority.

United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (upheld § 922(o) under Commerce Clause)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes dangerous and unusual weapons not protected)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2005) (commerce power over local activities with substantial effects)