822 F.3d 136
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Watson, sole trustee of the Watson Family Gun Trust, applied to ATF to make and register an M-16–style machine gun; ATF initially (erroneously) approved then revoked the approval and demanded surrender of the gun.
- Watson surrendered the machine gun under protest and sued the Attorney General and ATF seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (machine‑gun possession ban) and related NFA provisions as unconstitutional and arguing the statute does not apply to a trust.
- District Court dismissed Watson’s claims for failure to state a claim, concluding (1) the Second Amendment does not protect possession of machine guns, and (2) a trust is not a separate legal person authorized under § 922(a)(1) to possess a machine gun.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, relying on Heller and its own precedent in Marzzarella to hold machine guns fall outside Second Amendment protection, and adopted the view that trustees cannot evade § 922(o) by holding firearms in trust.
- The court applied constitutional avoidance first to interpret the statute and rejected Watson’s construction that a trust falls outside the statutory definition of “person” in § 922(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trust is excluded from § 922(o) because a trust is not a “person” under § 922(a)(1) | Watson: A trust is not a listed “person,” so § 922(o) does not bar the Trust from possessing a machine gun | Government/ATF: Trusts are not separate legal persons distinct from trustees; the trustee (a natural person) cannot evade statutory prohibitions by using a trust | Held: Trusts cannot be used to circumvent § 922(o); a trustee is subject to the statute and ATF properly denies NFA permission if the human trustee is prohibited |
| Whether § 922(o) violates the Second Amendment facially or as‑applied to Watson (possession of machine guns) | Watson: § 922(o) is unconstitutional as a de facto ban on an entire class of arms; Watson challenges application to him | Government: Heller and circuit precedent place machine guns outside Second Amendment protection as “dangerous and unusual” or not in common use | Held: Affirmed — machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment; § 922(o) does not burden conduct within the Amendment’s scope, so the challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual self‑defense right but excludes certain weapons)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (adopted two‑step inquiry and held dangerous/unusual weapons are unprotected)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (historic limit on Second Amendment protection tied to militia‑type weapons)
- United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008) (machine guns not in common lawful use; outside Second Amendment)
- United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (machine guns are highly dangerous and not typically possessed by law‑abiding citizens)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting Heller suggests M‑16–type weapons may be banned)