New Lawsuit Targets Federal Machine Gun Ban — And the Power Behind It

Founding Fathers like James Madison were very clear that the Federal Government had limits on it's power.

It is exciting to see cases pushing for the expansion of gun rights. While this case isn’t just about machine guns, it’s about whether the federal government has the authority to regulate everything, or if there are still limits.

A new lawsuit out of Texas is asking a question Washington really doesn’t want answered. Where does Congress actually get this power?

What’s Happening

A lawsuit backed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation has been filed on behalf of the Temple Gun Club. This lawsuit is challenging the federal machine gun ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). That law makes it illegal to possess machine guns manufactured after 1986.

This prohibition doesn’t matter if you paid the NFA tax stamp or followed every rule. It also does not matter if the firearm never left your state and entered in interstate commerce. You are still banned for owning it. Even us FFL’s with an SOT have heavy restrictions on these types of weapons. This is exactly what this lawsuit is targeting.

The Core Argument

The case isn’t just about the Second Amendment. It is actually, mostly, about the Commerce Clause. Because congress has long used the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify federal gun laws. There is an issue with that, § 922(o) doesn’t require any connection to interstate commerce.

You can be convicted under this law without buying, selling, or transporting across state lines. The mere possession alone is enough. This regulation looks less like commerce regulation, and more like federal police power. This is a power which the Constitution does not give Congress.

We have been tracking many different attacks on the prohibition of machine guns in the United States in recent months. Multiple lawsuits attacking this amendment to the FOPA have been filed. All are attacking different elements of it.

We are also seeing states attempt to pass bills that would comply with the prohibition federally and still allow for the sale of machine guns to the public. Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical, this is the most exciting attack yet. Because this case goes straight to the foundation of federal authority.

If Congress can regulate anything that might have crossed a state line at some point. Then realistically there are no limits left. Federal power has ballooned into things the constitution and our Founding Fathers never intended for it to be. We are now seeing courts and individuals finally fight back.

The Constitutional Problem

The Founders were very clear on this issue. James Madison wrote in Federalist 51,

“Government must be able to control the governed—but also control itself”.

That second part is extremely important. That’s where things are breaking down on this particular law. The Constitution only explicitly defines a handful of federal crimes. Today we have thousands of federal crimes far beyond what was established in 1791. Many of them, like this one, are justified under a stretched interpretation of interstate commerce.

The Precedent

This isn’t new territory with this argument. In United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act because it had no real connection to interstate commerce. Does this sound familiar? This is exactly what is being alleged here.

Even then-Judge Samuel Alito once noted that the machine gun ban is “the closest relative” to the law struck down in Lopez. Yet somehow, we still have it standing in 2026. If this lawsuit is successful, this would be one of the largest restoration of rights in U.S. history for gun owners.

It would also be one of the largest curtailing the power of congress we have seen in recent years. The precedent here, like all court rulings, would have far reaching implications on what congress can regulate. Federal law can reach deep into purely local activity.

Often ownership, not just transactions, are criminalized regardless of use. When this happens, constitutional limits become harder to enforce. More broadly, it sets the precedent that Congress can regulate almost anything.

Make no mistake this case faces an uphill battle. We have seen the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously upheld § 922(o). Also, the federal government will not take the curtailing of their power laying down. However, here’s the interesting part. Multiple judges on that same court have already questioned that precedent.

This could be the lawsuit that  forces a reevaluation of prior rulings. It might reopen the Commerce Clause debate and potentially head to the Supreme Court. If it does end up there, the Supreme Court will have a hard time overruling based on its Lopez precedent.

As with pretty much all court cases, they extend far beyond the stated issue, in this case machine guns. Most cases are about whether the federal government has limits to its power.

If Congress can regulate possession with no connection to commerce, then the Commerce Clause isn’t a limit at all but a blank check. We do not believe that here at 2 If By Sea Tactical. We believe there are limits on federal power. We believe that rights do mean something. We also believe that our Founders had specific things in mind when they wrote our constitution and they spelled it out in the Federalist Papers. Cases like this don’t just shape gun law, they shape the balance of power between the government and the governed.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.