By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS—Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States of America: Docket No. 25‑1190: Current certiorari petition before U.S. Supreme Court; Fourth Circuit’s ruling: The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in United States v. Patrick Adamiak, No. 23‑4451 (4th Cir. 2025): U.S. District Court: Hawaii: Ninth District (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii); Justin Arnold, Bryan Garland, James Grell, Andrew White v. Hawaii County, non-residents can apply for Right-to-Carry permit in Hawaii.
SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court meets on Thursday, May 14, to discuss cases. All 5 Second Amendment cases that have been relisted many times are on the list. Decisions will be announced on Monday, May 18, 2026.
Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States of America: Docket No. 25‑1190: Current certiorari petition pending before the U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Patrick Tate Adamiak: Case No. 2:22‑cr‑00047‑001: The case involves Navy veteran Patrick “Tate” Adamiak’s federal prosecution and 20-year sentence for allegedly possessing and transferring a machine gun and unregistered destructive devices, as well as his subsequent challenge to these convictions and sentence on constitutional and statutory grounds.
Procedural posture
- Adamiak was investigated by ATF after selling parts and militaria online; agents used a confidential source to buy eight alleged “machineguns” from him.
- He was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia and ultimately tried on one count of receiving or possessing an unregistered firearm (a PPSH‑41‑type machine gun) under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), one count of possessing or transferring a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), and three counts of receiving or possessing unregistered destructive devices (M79‑ and M203‑type 40mm launchers and two RPG‑7‑type projectors).
- A jury convicted on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to a total of 20 years in prison, partly due to a Guidelines score of 43—equivalent to a federal murder case—despite his lack of prior criminal history.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit largely upheld the decision but determined that one of the overlapping convictions (either the § 5861(d) count or the § 922(o) count) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The case was remanded for the vacatur of one count and resentencing.
- In 2026, Adamiak submitted a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and several gun‑rights groups (SAF, NRA) filed amicus briefs encouraging review.
United States v. Patrick Tate Adamiak: Case No. 23-4451: Adamiak’s appeal to the Fourth Circuit raised several arguments, but only one was successful:
- Double Jeopardy: He argued that his convictions for both possessing or receiving an unregistered firearm under § 5861(d) and possessing or transferring a machine gun under § 922(o), based on the same PPSH-type gun, amounted to multiple punishments for the “same offense.”
The panel only agreed on the Double Jeopardy issue and rejected his other claims.
Fourth Circuit’s ruling: The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in United States v. Patrick Adamiak, No. 23‑4451 (4th Cir. 2025):
- Double Jeopardy: The government agreed, and the court concurred, that the counts under § 5861(d) and § 922(o)—as charged and tried—were the “same offense” under the Blockburger test because the jury could convict on both based on the same conduct: knowing possession of a single PPSH machinegun.
- Remedy: Following Ball v. United States, the court remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate one of the overlapping convictions (either Count One or Count Two) and resentence Adamiak accordingly.
- Indictment: The court found the indictment sufficient because it listed the statutory elements and specified the items (PPSH machinegun; M79 and M203 40mm launchers; two RPG‑7‑type projectors), thus adequately informing him of the charges.
- Evidence and instructions: The court found sufficient evidence based on testimony from ATF agents, a cooperating informant, a firearms retailer, and several expert witnesses, and held that the jury instructions accurately stated the law.
- Second Amendment: The panel dismissed his Second Amendment challenge as barred by its previous rulings in Bianchi v. Brown and United States v. Hunt, which upheld federal restrictions on certain weapons even after Bruen.
- Vagueness: The court determined that the relevant statutes were not unconstitutionally vague as they applied to his conduct.
Factual background and controversy: Gun-rights advocates and commentators depict Adamiak’s case as a prime example of aggressive ATF classification practices and prosecutorial overreach.
- Nature of the items:
- Supporters argue that many of the items were inert relics, demilled parts, 37mm flare launchers, demilled WWII receivers, open‑bolt semi‑autos, or even a toy STEN‑type gun, which ATF still classified as “machine guns” or “destructive devices.”
- For example, an ATF expert allegedly made a toy submachine gun fire a single round by installing real parts and then described it as a machine gun.
- Two RPG‑7‑style launchers and M79/M203‑style launchers that lacked anti‑personnel ammunition were classified as destructive devices, despite regulatory language that exempts 37mm flare launchers without such ammunition.
- Sentencing severity: His Guidelines score reached 43, driven by the classification and number of items, resulting in a 20-year sentence comparable to federal murder sentencing despite having no prior record.
- Defense expert notes: The defense tried to call former ATF official Dan O’Kelly to challenge ATF’s classifications; some charges involving “MAC‑flats” were dropped or not pursued once it became clear that such pre‑cut flats did not meet the regulatory definition of a receiver.
Second Amendment groups now point to the case as an example of how vague definitions and ATF re-interpretations can turn legal collecting and parts sales into serious felonies.
Current Supreme Court posture: Patrick Tate Adamiak, Petitioner v. United States: Case No. 25-1190
- Adamiak filed a cert petition
- Adamiak filed a cert petition in the Supreme Court (captioned Adamiak v. United States), challenging, among other things, the Fourth Circuit’s support of the indictment and its rejection of his Second Amendment and due process claims.
- The petition argues that:
- The indictment was impermissibly vague and could not be cured by a bill of particulars; and
- Treating unregistered, inert, or cut‑up parts as NFA firearms or destructive devices raises serious Second Amendment and due‑process concerns that courts must analyze under Bruen’s historical‑tradition test.
- Amicus Briefs:
- As of mid‑May 2026, the amicus landscape in Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States includes a single joint amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on May 4. This brief was submitted by a coalition of gun‑rights groups led by the Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association of America, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They urge the Court to grant certiorari and argue that Adamiak’s conviction and 20‑year sentence for nonfunctional, cut‑up relics and inert training aids both misapply the National Firearms Act and demonstrate lower courts’ avoidance of the Bruen framework at the “plain text” stage, at the earlier Fourth Circuit level.
- Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Action Foundation had separately appeared as amici supporting Adamiak during his Fourth Circuit trial, but no additional, distinct amicus filings beyond the SAF‑led coalition brief are yet evident on the current Supreme Court docket.
Court of Appeals
In a YouTube video, Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), explains why a Fifth Circuit en banc denial in a federal machine gun case (U.S. v. Wilson) and why, from a pro‑2A strategy perspective, it’s actually good that the court did not strike down the federal machine gun ban right now.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
United States v. Wilson, No. 24‑10633 (5th Cir.). Smith’s video explains a Fifth Circuit en banc denial in a federal machine gun case and why, from a pro‑2A strategy perspective, it’s actually beneficial that the court did not strike down the federal machine gun ban at this time.
Case posture and vote
- Damian Wilson used a Glock with an auto‑sear (“Glock switch”) to kill someone and was convicted of unlawful machine‑gun possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922.
- A three‑judge Fifth Circuit panel affirmed his conviction; Wilson then sought rehearing en banc before the full court (17 active judges).
- The court voted 10–7 to deny rehearing en banc, so the panel decision stands and the machine‑gun ban remains in effect in this case.
Strategic Second Amendment angle
- Smith’s main point: there are currently not five votes at SCOTUS to hold that machine guns are protected weapons that cannot be banned under the Second Amendment.
- He argues the 2A movement should avoid seeking a circuit ruling that strikes down the federal machine-gun ban now, because DOJ would seek cert and the Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold the ban and set a terrible nationwide precedent.
- He wants the “hardware” docket ordered: first an AR‑15 ban case, then magazines, then suppressors, and only later machine guns, preferably through state “outlier” laws rather than federal law challenges.
The opinions: concurrence (10) and dissents (7)
- Two judges who voted to deny rehearing en banc, Judge Don Willett and Judge Jennifer Elrod, wrote a concurrence suggesting that the federal machine‑gun ban is constitutionally questionable but that Wilson’s case is a poor vehicle to decide it.
- They highlight the “belt and suspenders” approach of enumerated powers and rights, question whether simply owning a firearm (even a machine gun) falls within the categories of the Commerce Clause, and point out that it’s hard to call “millions of machine guns registered with ATF” “unusual” for dangerous‑and‑unusual analysis (Smith disputes their figures, claiming there are only about 160,000 civilian‑owned transferable MGs).
- Seven judges dissented from the denial and called for an en banc review to revisit old anti-2A precedent.
Judges Odum and Ho: Judge Andrew Oldham and Judge James Ho write strong pro‑2A dissents, arguing there is no historical basis for banning machine guns.
- Oldham: repeats have existed since the 15th century; repeating arms were known at the Founding (e.g., the Girardoni air rifle on the Lewis and Clark expedition); and no founding‑era jurisdiction banned specific arms, ammo, or accessories except for a narrow 1686 East New Jersey Quaker carry restriction on handguns and knives.
- Ho: emphasizes that Second Amendment analysis should be grounded in history, not fear of guns; notes that some citizens associate guns with crime while others see them as a means of self-defense; and reminds that the Founders mandated able-bodied men aged 18–45 to be armed (Militia Act of 1792).
- Smith frames these dissents as both excellent 2A writing and, realistically, as “auditions” for the next Supreme Court vacancy, alongside other judges like David Stras (8th Cir.) and Lawrence VanDyke (9th Cir.).
Vehicle problem and “bearable arms”
- Willett and Elrod’s concurrence notes that § 922(o) (post‑1986 machine‑gun ban) covers not just bearable machine guns but also non‑bearable weapons, such as guns that can only be mounted on tanks or aircraft.
- Because the Second Amendment text and Heller/Bruen protect “bearable” arms, a facial challenge to § 922(o) may fail if the statute has constitutional applications to non‑bearable weapons, even if there are serious issues when applied to civilian‑owned, bearable machine guns.
- Smith says that’s why they viewed Wilson as a poor vehicle, not because they believe the ban is fundamentally fine.
Movement strategy and criminal defendants
- Smith warns that criminal defendants and federal defenders will keep raising 2A defenses in machine‑gun and auto‑sear cases because their interest is getting out of prison, not guarding long‑term doctrine.
- Eventually, a machine‑gun case could produce a pro‑2A circuit ruling, which would then go to SCOTUS at a bad time and likely lose, cementing anti‑2A precedent “for decades.”
- He analogizes to the LGBT rights litigation path: they did not jump straight to same‑sex marriage in the early 1970s but moved incrementally; he wants similar incrementalism for 2A, winning AR‑15, magazine, and suppressor cases first.
U.S. District Court
Hawaii: Ninth District (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii).
Justin Arnold, Bryan Garland, James Grell, Andrew White v. Hawaii County; CIVIL NO. CV 26-00064-SASP-RT
Hawaii entered a stipulated judgment that allows non‑residents who are (current or future) members of the Hawaii Rifle Association to apply for concealed carry licenses, and a federal judge permanently enjoined enforcement of Hawaii’s resident‑only CCW restriction as to those plaintiffs and HRA members.
Key legal takeaways
- The case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Second Amendment.
- The permanent injunction bars Hawaii from enforcing its residency‑based prohibition against obtaining a concealed carry license, but only as to Sinsky and HRA members, reflecting Article III’s case‑or‑controversy and redressability limits.
- Because the judge can only bind parties before the court, the relief is structured via organizational standing: anyone who joins HRA (for a modest dues amount Mark describes) falls within the beneficiary class of the judgment.
- This case is consistent with long‑standing Supreme Court doctrine on organizational standing (e.g., NAACP, NRA‑type cases) and post‑Trump v. CASA limits on universal injunctions.
- The judgment includes an award of attorneys’ fees against the state, underscoring that Hawaii had to effectively “roll over” rather than defend its non‑resident ban on the merits in light of Bruen‑era Second Amendment doctrine.
Practical implications
- A non‑resident who wants to carry concealed in Hawaii can join the Hawaii Rifle Association and then apply for a CCW under this judgment; non‑members technically remain outside the injunction and would need either to join HRA or bring their own suit.
- Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, presents this as another incremental Bruen‑driven win in a historically hostile jurisdiction, and he predicts continued litigation pressure in Hawaii and similar blue states by attorneys such as Alan Beck and Kevin O’Grady.
