Clarifying “Dangerous and Unusual”: Sixth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of the Federal Machine-Gun Ban After Bruen

1. Introduction

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | Caption: United States v. Jaquan L. Bridges, No. 24-5874 | Date: 7 August 2025 | Panel: Judges Boggs, Griffin (majority), Nalbandian (separate concurrence)

United States v. Bridges is the Sixth Circuit’s first published foray into the post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen landscape on the hot-button question of weapon-type bans. The panel unanimously upholds the federal prohibition on civilian possession of machine-guns, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), while sharply debating methodology and the continuing vitality of the court’s pre-Bruen precedent United States v. Hamblen. Judge Griffin’s opinion for the court proceeds on two “independent” grounds: (1) existing precedents—particularly Hamblen—remain binding and foreclose the challenge; and (2) even applying the Bruen text-and-history test afresh, machine-guns are “dangerous and unusual” weapons outside the Second Amendment’s protection.

Judge Nalbandian concurs in the judgment but writes separately to criticize the majority’s reliance on Hamblen and to urge caution in extending dicta about “dangerous and unusual” arms to outright bans. The result, however, is unanimous: the machine-gun ban survives both facial and as-applied Second Amendment attacks.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The panel affirms Jaquan Bridges’s conviction for possessing a machine-gun equipped with a “Glock switch.”
It holds that § 922(o) is constitutional both facially and as applied under the Second Amendment.
The court applies Bruen’s two-step framework:
- Step 1 (Text): possession of a machine-gun is conduct that falls within the broad text (“keep and bear Arms”).
- Step 2 (History): historical tradition supports bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons”; machine-guns are both dangerous (high lethality) and unusual (not commonly possessed for lawful purposes), so § 922(o) is permissible.
Alternatively—and centrally to the majority—Hamblen (2009) remains binding because Bruen did not disturb the portions of Heller on which Hamblen relied.
The court therefore dismisses Bridges’s facial and as-applied challenges in tandem and upholds his 108-month sentence.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – Recognised an individual right to possess firearms and noted a historical tradition of banning “dangerous and unusual” weapons, citing machine-guns as an example.
United States v. Miller (1939) – Upheld restriction on short-barrel shotguns, emphasising weapons’ connection to militia usefulness.
United States v. Hamblen (6th Cir. 2009) – Applied Heller to reject a machine-gun challenge; the majority treats it as still controlling.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) – Replaced tier-of-scrutiny tests with a text-and-history inquiry; pivotal for modern Second Amendment litigation.
United States v. Rahimi (2024) – Clarified that facial and as-applied challenges can be resolved together if statute is valid under the challenger’s own facts.
Additional citations: Garland v. Cargill (2024) (technical definition of automatic fire), Staples, Bianchi v. Brown (4th Cir. en banc 2024), etc.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Binding Effect of Hamblen

The majority first asks whether Bruen undermines Hamblen. Because Hamblen relied solely on Heller rather than the now-rejected “two-step” means-end scrutiny, the panel finds no “intervening” Supreme Court authority that requires departure. This restores a strong form of stare decisis for Sixth Circuit panels facing similar weapons-type bans.

3.2.2 Fresh Application of the Bruen Test

Step 1 – Text: The panel readily concludes “machine-guns” qualify as “Arms.” They are bearable firearms even though not invented in 1791.
Step 2 – Historical Analogues:
- Dangerous: Fully automatic fire (700–950 rounds/minute) poses extraordinary public danger.
- Unusual: Only ~176,000 grandfathered civilian-owned machine-guns exist, a minuscule fraction of hundreds of millions of U.S. firearms. Most lawful machine-guns are in law-enforcement inventories.
- Historical regulations—from the Statute of Northampton through 19th-century state laws on Bowie-knives and brass knuckles—support bans on weapons not in common lawful use.
Because machine-guns fall outside protected classes of arms, the ban “comports with the Nation’s historical tradition.”

3.2.3 Facial and As-Applied Collapse

Following Rahimi, the court analyzes the two challenges together. If Bridges’s own conduct is unprotected, a fortiori the statute is not facially invalid.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Re-centering Circuit Law: Confirms that pre-Bruen precedents that did not apply means-end scrutiny remain intact—significant for felon-in-possession (§ 922(g)(1)) and other status-based prohibitions.
Guidance for Weapon-Specific Bans: Provides a roadmap for defending bans on “conversion devices,” bump-stocks, or other emerging technologies by framing them as “dangerous and unusual.”
Inter-Circuit Tension: Contrasts with the Fourth and Seventh Circuits’ approach (placing “dangerous and unusual” analysis at Bruen Step 1). A future Supreme Court resolution is now more likely.
Litigation Strategy: Government litigators gain a tested template: emphasise limited civilian ownership, long-standing criminal associations, and the public-safety rationale without invoking interest balancing.
Stare Decisis Debate: Judge Nalbandian’s concurrence signals open season on earlier, dicta-based cases—potentially inviting en banc review on whether Hamblen truly survives Bruen.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Machine-gun

A firearm that fires more than one round per trigger pull (fully automatic). A “Glock switch” is a thumbnail-sized metal part that converts a semi-automatic Glock pistol into a machine-gun.

“Dangerous and Unusual” Doctrine

A historical limit recognised since at least Blackstone: arms that are both especially lethal and not commonly possessed for lawful ends may be restricted or banned without violating the Second Amendment.

Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge

Facial: plaintiff claims law is invalid in every application. As-applied: law is invalid only in the challenger’s specific circumstances. Under Rahimi, if a court finds the law valid as applied, the facial claim usually collapses.

Bruen Two-Step Framework

Step 1 – Text: Does the conduct fall within “keep and bear Arms”?
Step 2 – History: Is the regulation consistent with historical analogues? No tiers of scrutiny or policy balancing.

Binding Precedent (“Stare Decisis”)

A published Sixth Circuit decision (e.g., Hamblen) binds later panels unless a Supreme Court opinion or en banc circuit ruling clearly abrogates it.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Bridges cements, at least within the Sixth Circuit, the constitutionality of the federal machine-gun ban even under the rigorous Bruen standard. By reaffirming Hamblen and conducting an independent historical analysis, the court clarifies that firearms most “useful in military service”—and rarely kept by law-abiding civilians—remain outside the Second Amendment’s protection. At the same time, the spirited concurrence highlights unresolved questions about the scope of historical analogues and the weight of Supreme Court dicta. Practitioners should expect the “dangerous and unusual” category to be the next major battleground as litigants pivot to challenge (or defend) bans on other weapon types such as high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles. Until the Supreme Court speaks again, Bridges stands as a comprehensive circuit-level blueprint for evaluating weapon-specific prohibitions in a post-Bruen world.