Ninth Circuit Upholds Federal Machine Gun Ban in Split Decision

The country’s largest federal appeals court upheld Wednesday the nationwide ban on possession of machine guns, finding the federal law still comports with the Second Amendment despite recent US Supreme Court rulings expanding gun rights.

The majority opinion of a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction of Daniel Matthew Kittson, a previously convicted felon who sold a World War II-era Russian machine gun to an undercover federal agent.

The opinion written by Judge John B. Owens, an appointee of President Barack Obama, rejected Kittson’s argument that the ban on the possession and transfer of machine guns doesn’t apply to him because the gun was going to a federal agent, who is exempted.

“Without citing a single case, Kittson demands that we sweep away decades of case law and logic and hold that there is nothing illegal about transferring machine guns to undercover agents posing as the most odious criminals,” Owens said.

The opinion also rejected Kittson’s argument that the machine gun ban violates the Second Amendment based on the US Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which broadly expanded gun rights.

Owens said the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit’s previous ruling upholding the machine gun ban remains intact post-Bruen. The appeals court in the 2012 decision United States v. Henry engaged in a historical analysis required by Bruen, and found that machine guns “were considered to be dangerous” and uncommon.

The Wednesday ruling drew a dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of President Donald Trump, who argued that the court misinterpreted the text of the federal statute.

Kittson had never physically possessed the machine gun, but rather arranged for the sale of the gun to an undercover agent through a third party who had the weapon. None of the majority’s cited precedents account for that fact pattern, VanDyke said.

He also said the statute plainly states that it does not criminalize the “any transfer to the government.”

“Any person who transfers a machine gun to the government does not commit a crime by doing so, even if he is mistaken about the legality of his action,” the dissent said.

VanDyke said he wouldn’t need to reach the Second Amendment issue, but said he would have sent the case back to the district court to conduct a historical inquiry. The Ninth Circuit’s Henry case didn’t do that, he said.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, joined the majority.

The Federal Public Defender’s Office represents Kittson.

The case is United States of America v. Kittson, 9th Cir., No. 23-4132, 12/10/25.