Rush v US - SBRs

[SiliconSorcerer]

United States v. Rush

Docket: 23-3256 Opinion Date: March 10, 2025 Judge: Joshua Kolar Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In August 2022, Jamond Rush was charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, specifically an AR-15 rifle with a 7.5-inch barrel, in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Rush moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol a**’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The government opposed, citing the Supreme Court's earlier decision in United States v. Miller, which upheld similar regulations. The district court denied Rush's motion, holding that Bruen did not affect the constitutionality of regulating unregistered short-barreled rifles. Rush entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois reviewed the case and denied Rush's motion to dismiss, leading to his appeal. The court held that Rush's conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment's plain text or historical understanding. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the NFA's requirement to register certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles, is constitutional. The court relied on the precedent set by United States v. Miller, which upheld similar regulations, and found that the NFA's provisions are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court concluded that the regulation of short-barreled rifles does not violate the Second Amendment, as these weapons are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. The court affirmed Rush's conviction and the denial of his motion to dismiss.

[Euler]

If it gets petitioned to the US Supreme Court to overturn the NFA, that's the time to get excited. In the meantime, it's a 2A case that could go in the Judicial forum.

SBSs, SBRs, and silencers are likely to get overturned eventually, IMO. They're uncommon because they're banned. They're banned because they're uncommon.

Full-auto probably won't be overturned. The Hughes Amendment could die, though, but that's a different topic for another time and place.

[mab22]

I’m not sure I understand the idea why a short barrel rifle should be regulated, it’s actually LESS powerful than a regular length barrel rifle. Is it concealable, maybe, but so is a handgun, and some modern handguns can have higher capacity.

So what’s the point?

 

 

[Flynn]

On 3/11/2025 at 4:15 PM, Euler said:

SBSs, SBRs, and silencers are likely to get overturned eventually, IMO. They're uncommon because they're banned. They're banned because they're uncommon.

Full-auto probably won't be overturned.

 

Curious why do you imply your logic for other NFA items being overturned does not apply to full-auto?  The only difference I see goes back to the anti-gunners 'it's scary' logic, as full auto might not have been widely common before it was banned but it wasn't uncommon either and it's still not uncommon both in civilian and LE circles, it's just highly regulated and the ban for civilian ones means that number is fixed, but the LE number grows making in more common...

[Euler]

Full-autos were not common before they were banned by the Hughes Amendment. Trying to get them removed from the NFA would be a fool's errand. Getting the Hughes Amendment repealed is realistic.

Mark Smith has gone into it more. Although I only agree with half of what he says, I agree with him on that. Unfortunately it's impossible to search through the click-baity wording of his BREAKING NEWS!!!! OMG!!! THIS IS AWESOME!!! YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE IT!!! YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE VIDEO TO SEE WHAT I MEAN!!! titles to find anything.

As I said, that's a different topic for another thread. This topic is about SBRs.

[Smallbore]

I see no reason for full auto being banned. They are no more dangerous/lethal then a shotgun or a single shot rifle. Them being banned is an infringement making no one safer. But logic is often trumped by silly emotion.

[Euler]

It's pretty much all over social media that the NRA is sponsoring a petition for certiorari for this case to the US Supreme Court. They filed the petition on June 6. It should get a docket number soon.

[Upholder]

On 3/12/2025 at 7:40 AM, mab22 said:

I’m not sure I understand the idea why a short barrel rifle should be regulated, it’s actually LESS powerful than a regular length barrel rifle. Is it concealable, maybe, but so is a handgun, and some modern handguns can have higher capacity.

So what’s the point?

 

The NFA, as originally written, also included handguns.  The idea was that if they were going to heavily regulate handguns, they would also need to include short barrelled rifles and shotguns to prevent people from "exploiting a loophole" in the modern parlance.

 

Handguns were removed before it was passed, but the SBR and SBS restrictions remained,  One could argue that was an oversight.

[Euler]

On June 10, the Supreme Court assigned a docket.

Edited June 10, 2025 at 08:41 PM by Euler

[MrTriple]

On 3/12/2025 at 7:40 AM, mab22 said:

I’m not sure I understand the idea why a short barrel rifle should be regulated, it’s actually LESS powerful than a regular length barrel rifle. Is it concealable, maybe, but so is a handgun, and some modern handguns can have higher capacity.

So what’s the point?

 

 

I believe it's a vestigial remnant of the original draft of the NFA, which included pistols until they were removed. As such, the language that passed is a ghost of the draft, which had the effect of creating unusual and unfortunate side effects.

[Tango7]

The Congressional Record from the era reveals that SBS's and SBR's were included with suppressors not by law enforcement, but by the tree huggers, who claimed they facilitated poaching. 

 

Guess ol' FDR figured if he was gonna infringe, he was gonna do it big time.

[Euler]

On June 13, the US waived its response. (i.e., it doesn't think it needs to respond.)

[Euler]

The petition has been scheduled for conference in September.

[Euler]

On July 31, the Court requested that the US respond to the petition, despite the waiver, by September 2.

[Euler]

On August 28, the US asked for an extension to file its response.

[Euler]

On August 29, the Court extended the time for the US to respond to October 2.

[Euler]

On October 2, the US asked for an extension to October 9 to file its response.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 10/2/2025 at 11:55 PM, Euler said:

On October 2, the US asked for an extension to October 9 to file its response.

A right delayed is a right denied. It's only a few days, but still...

[Euler]

On October 2, 2025 at 11:55 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On October 2, the US asked for an extension to October 9 to file its response.

On October 6, the Court granted the extension.

[Euler]

On October 9, the US met the extended deadline to file its response. The US opposes granting certiorari. It says:

1. Rush intended to use the rifle for an illegal purpose. Since he was not keeping or bearing the arm for a lawful purpose, his possession of the firearm is not protected.

2. Miller (1939) is the governing precedent, which upheld registration and taxation of NFA items. Rush asserts that Miller is outdated, but offers no substantiation for the argument.

3. Registration and taxation of weapons susceptible to criminal misuse is consistent with 19th century history and tradition, for example, the regulation of Bowie knives.

4. Ultimately the case is a poor vehicle to reconsider Miller, anyway.

I have to wonder if DOJ is serious, or if it just wants the Supreme Court to kill those arguments.

[Euler]

On October 23, Rush replied.

1. The 7th Circuit panel decision that possession of SBRs does not even implicate the 2nd Amendment <<beggars all belief>>. The panel rejected the common use test, insisting that possession simply was not a use, but required justification for a particular purpose. That line of reasoning would defeat all facial challenges. <<[G]overnment defendants will always be able to hypothesize at least one set of circumstances -- involving dangerous criminals or unusual weapons -- where any given firearm restriction could constitutionally be applied.>>

2. <<[T]he federal Courts of Appeals have divided over whether all bearable firearms fall within the Second Amendment's plain text ...; whether the "common use" test is located at the text or history stage of the Bruen framework ...; how to determine whether an arm is "in common use" rather than "dangerous and unusual" ...; and whether arms "most useful in military service" are protected .... And the starkness of the Seventh Circuit's departure from this Court's precedent -- combined with the peculiar and anomalous nature of the restrictions on short-barreled rifles at issue -- in fact make this case a particularly suitable vehicle for resolving one or more of these fundamental methodological questions.>>

Edited October 24, 2025 at 08:55 PM by Euler