A group of firearm owners is challenging a federal law that prohibits individuals from possessing machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986, arguing that this restriction exceeds the constitutional powers granted to Congress. The complaint was filed by Temple Gun Club, Inc., along with Jeffrey Howard, Jason Armstrong, and Clark Miracle, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 10, 2026. The named defendants are Pamela Bondi in her official capacity as Attorney General, Daniel Driscoll as Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Brian Garner as Special Agent in Charge of BATFE’s Dallas Field Division, and Michael Weddel as Special Agent in Charge of BATFE’s Houston Field Division.
The plaintiffs assert that the federal statute at issue—18 U.S.C. § 922(0)—is unconstitutional because it prohibits mere possession of post-1986 machineguns without a sufficient connection to interstate commerce or any other enumerated power granted to Congress by the Constitution. According to their filing, “the greatest enduring stronghold of the American experiment is that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers,” referencing both Article I and the Tenth Amendment. They argue that “Congress has no power to enact a comprehensive criminal code” and contend that Section 922(0) cannot be justified under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The background section outlines how Congress passed several firearms laws over decades: first with the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, then with the Gun Control Act in 1968—which included restrictions on who could possess firearms—and later with the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986. It was during consideration of FOPA that Representative William Hughes introduced an amendment banning possession or transfer of new machineguns except for government agencies or those lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986. The complaint notes there was little legislative debate about this provision: “There is no committee report, and sparse legislative history… The only apparent explanation for it is the statement of its sponsor… ‘I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machine guns.’”
Plaintiffs describe themselves as law-abiding citizens eligible under all applicable laws to possess firearms. Temple Gun Club reports more than 1,000 members statewide; its president Jeffrey Howard is a retired Army Sergeant Major who served twenty-six years; Jason Armstrong is a gunsmith with a federal firearms license; Clark Miracle is also an active member who owns multiple firearms. All three state they would convert existing rifles into machineguns or acquire post-1986 models if not for Section 922(0). They further claim club members include gunsmiths capable of performing such conversions but refrain due to legal risks.
The legal argument centers on whether mere possession constitutes economic activity subject to congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs cite Supreme Court precedents such as United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), which limited Congress’s reach over non-economic activities lacking clear ties to interstate commerce. They assert: “Merely possessing an item is not ‘the exchange of goods and services,’ nor is it ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’” Furthermore, they note Section 922(0) lacks explicit language connecting possession to interstate commerce—a feature present elsewhere in federal gun laws.
According to plaintiffs’ filing, enforcement actions under Section 922(0) continue nationwide; they reference Department of Justice statistics showing hundreds charged annually for violations related to machinegun possession. Plaintiffs argue they face credible threats of prosecution if they attempt conversion or acquisition activities prohibited by current law.
In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment stating that Section 922(0) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied specifically to them. They also seek a permanent injunction barring defendants from enforcing this provision against Temple Gun Club members or related entities. Additionally, they ask for recovery of legal costs including attorney fees pursuant to statute.
The complaint was submitted by attorneys Robert Henneke (TX Bar No. 24046058), Chance Weldon (TX Bar No. 24076767), and Eric Heigis (VA Bar No. 98221) from Texas Public Policy Foundation based in Austin, Texas. The case identifier listed on court documents is Case No. 4:26-cv-00265-O.
Source: 426cv00265_Temple_Gun_v_Pamela_Bondi_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Texas.pdf
