United States v. Matthew Henry

Defendant-Appellant Matthew Wayne Henry appeals his conviction for illegal possession of a homemade machine gun, under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (o). He contends that he has a Second Amendment right to possess a homemade machine gun in his home. We reject this argument because machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are unprotected by the Second Amendment. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 , 128 S.Ct. 2783 , 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). Henry also argues that Congress did not have the power to enact § 922(o )’s prohibition against possessing machine guns pursuant to the powers delegated to Congress in the Commerce Clause. That argument fails because we already have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes § 922(o)’s machine gun possession ban. United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we affirm Henry’s conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2009, the Anchorage Police Department dispatched officers to a home after receiving reports of gunfire. Officers found numerous shell casings in the area. The Anchorage police executed a search warrant of the residence, seeking evidence of firearms and ammunition.…