In his ruling in United States v. Chan, Derrick Kahala Watson, Obama-appointed U.S. district judge for the District of Hawaii, claimed earlier this month that since the short-barreled rifle fitted with a switch that turned it into an automatic firearm possessed by Christopher Chan is not in common use in the United States today, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply.
During a welfare check in 2022, police found a bag in the trunk of Chan’s vehicle containing a short-barreled rifle fitted with a conversion switch. For that, he was charged with both possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle and possession of a machine gun. Both are violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
Second Amendment Rights Violated
Chan filed a complaint that his Second Amendment rights were being violated. He claimed that 1) short-barreled rifles are “arms” within the plain text of the Second Amendment; and 2) Hawaii cannot provide a Founding-era analogue (as required under Bruen) that is “relevantly similar” to the provisions of the NFA regulating them.
It should have been an easy reach for Judge Watson to rule in favor of Chan and toss the charges. But no — he had to find a way around Bruen. Watson correctly noted the challenge he faced:
[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation . . . the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
[…]
— Read More: thenewamerican.com
