Judge rules short-barreled rifles are not protected by Second Amendment

In a recent ruling in United States v. Chan, U.S. District Judge Derrick Kahala Watson determined that short-barreled rifles, particularly one fitted with a conversion switch to make it automatic, are not protected under the Second Amendment. This decision arose from a case involving Christopher Chan, who was found in possession of such a firearm during a welfare check in 2022. He faced charges for possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle and a machine gun, both violations of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Judge Watson acknowledged that Chan enjoys Second Amendment rights but ruled that short-barreled rifles are classified as "dangerous and unusual weapons" that do not fall under the amendment's protection. He referenced previous court decisions that supported this classification, asserting that these firearms are not in common use among law-abiding citizens. This ruling aligns with the stance taken by other district courts following the Bruen decision. Chan's legal team argued that short-barreled rifles should be considered "arms" under the Second Amendment and that Hawaii failed to provide a historical analogue for the regulations imposed. However, Watson shifted the burden of proof onto Chan, requiring him to demonstrate that such weapons are in common use, rather than the government proving their regulation is historically justified. Ultimately, the court's decision reinforces the notion that certain firearms, deemed dangerous and unusual, can be regulated without infringing on constitutional rights. This ruling may have broader implications for future cases involving firearm regulations and Second Amendment interpretations.