{"id":116741,"date":"2026-05-13T19:29:40","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T00:29:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116741"},"modified":"2026-05-13T19:29:40","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T00:29:40","slug":"116741","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116741","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thegunmag.com\/grassroots-judicial-report-may-13-2026\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Grassroots Judicial Report\u2014May 13, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>By Tanya Metaksa<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em><strong>What\u2019s New\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014SCOTUS\u2014Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States of America: Docket No. 25\u20111190: Current certiorari petition before U.S. Supreme Court; Fourth Circuit\u2019s ruling: The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in\u00a0<strong>United States v. Patrick Adamiak, No. 23\u20114451 (4th Cir. 2025)<\/strong>: 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.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>SCOTUS<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States of America: Docket No. 25\u20111190: Current certiorari petition pending before the U.S. Supreme Court<\/p>\n<p><strong>United States v. Patrick Tate Adamiak: Case No. 2:22\u2011cr\u201100047\u2011001<\/strong>: The case involves Navy veteran Patrick \u201cTate\u201d Adamiak\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Procedural posture<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Adamiak was investigated by ATF after selling parts and militaria online; agents used a confidential source to buy eight alleged \u201cmachineguns\u201d from him.<\/li>\n<li>He was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia and ultimately tried on one count of receiving or possessing an unregistered firearm (a PPSH\u201141\u2011type machine gun) under 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 5861(d), one count of possessing or transferring a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(o), and three counts of receiving or possessing unregistered destructive devices (M79\u2011 and M203\u2011type 40mm launchers and two RPG\u20117\u2011type projectors).<\/li>\n<li>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\u2014equivalent to a federal murder case\u2014despite his lack of prior criminal history.<\/li>\n<li>On appeal, the Fourth Circuit largely upheld the decision but determined that one of the overlapping convictions (either the \u00a7 5861(d) count or the \u00a7 922(o) count) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The case was remanded for the vacatur of one count and resentencing.<\/li>\n<li>In 2026, Adamiak submitted a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and several gun\u2011rights groups (SAF, NRA) filed amicus briefs encouraging review.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>United States v. Patrick Tate Adamiak: Case No. 23-4451: Adamiak\u2019s appeal to the Fourth Circuit\u00a0<\/strong>raised several arguments, but only one was successful:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Double Jeopardy:<\/strong>\u00a0He argued that his convictions for both possessing or receiving an unregistered firearm under \u00a7 5861(d) and possessing or transferring a machine gun under \u00a7 922(o), based on the same PPSH-type gun, amounted to multiple punishments for the \u201csame offense.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The panel only agreed on the Double Jeopardy issue and rejected his other claims.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Fourth Circuit\u2019s ruling:\u00a0<\/strong>The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in<strong>\u00a0<em>United States v. Patrick Adamiak<\/em><\/strong><strong>, No. 23<\/strong><strong>\u20114451 (4th Cir. 2025):<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Double Jeopardy:<\/strong>\u00a0The government agreed, and the court concurred, that the counts under \u00a7 5861(d) and \u00a7 922(o)\u2014as charged and tried\u2014were the \u201csame offense\u201d under the Blockburger test because the jury could convict on both based on the same conduct: knowing possession of a single PPSH machinegun.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Remedy: Following\u00a0<em>Ball v. United States<\/em>, 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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Indictment:<\/strong>\u00a0The court found the indictment sufficient because it listed the statutory elements and specified the items (PPSH machinegun; M79 and M203 40mm launchers; two RPG\u20117\u2011type projectors), thus adequately informing him of the charges.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Evidence and instructions:\u00a0<\/strong>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.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Second Amendment:\u00a0<\/strong>The panel dismissed his Second Amendment challenge as barred by its previous rulings in\u00a0<em>Bianchi v. Brown<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0<em>United States v. Hunt<\/em>, which upheld federal restrictions on certain weapons even after\u00a0<em>Bruen<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Vagueness:\u00a0<\/strong>The court determined that the relevant statutes were not unconstitutionally vague as they applied to his conduct.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Factual background and controversy:\u00a0<\/strong>Gun-rights advocates and commentators depict Adamiak\u2019s case as a prime example of aggressive ATF classification practices and prosecutorial overreach.<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Nature of the items:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Supporters argue that many of the items were inert relics, demilled parts, 37mm flare launchers, demilled WWII receivers, open\u2011bolt semi\u2011autos, or even a toy STEN\u2011type gun, which ATF still classified as \u201cmachine guns\u201d or \u201cdestructive devices.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Two RPG\u20117\u2011style launchers and M79\/M203\u2011style launchers that lacked anti\u2011personnel ammunition were classified as destructive devices, despite regulatory language that exempts 37mm flare launchers without such ammunition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Sentencing severity:\u00a0<\/strong>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.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Defense expert notes:\u00a0<\/strong>The defense tried to call former ATF official Dan O\u2019Kelly to challenge ATF\u2019s classifications; some charges involving \u201cMAC\u2011flats\u201d were dropped or not pursued once it became clear that such pre\u2011cut flats did not meet the regulatory definition of a receiver.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Current Supreme Court posture: Patrick Tate Adamiak, Petitioner v. United States<\/strong><strong>: Case No. 25-1190<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Adamiak filed a cert petition<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Adamiak filed a cert petition in the Supreme Court (captioned\u00a0<em>Adamiak v. United States<\/em>), challenging, among other things, the Fourth Circuit\u2019s support of the indictment and its rejection of his Second Amendment and due process claims.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The petition argues that:<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The indictment was impermissibly vague and could not be cured by a bill of particulars; and<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Treating unregistered, inert, or cut\u2011up parts as NFA firearms or destructive devices raises serious Second Amendment and due\u2011process concerns that courts must analyze under\u00a0<em>Bruen<\/em>\u2019s historical\u2011tradition test.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Amicus Briefs:<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>As of mid\u2011May 2026, the amicus landscape in\u00a0<em>Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States<\/em>\u00a0includes a single joint amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on May 4. This brief was submitted by a coalition of gun\u2011rights groups led by the Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association of America, California Rifle &amp; 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\u2019s conviction and 20\u2011year sentence for nonfunctional, cut\u2011up relics and inert training aids both misapply the National Firearms Act and demonstrate lower courts\u2019 avoidance of the\u00a0<em>Bruen<\/em>\u00a0framework at the \u201cplain text\u201d stage, at the earlier Fourth Circuit level.<\/li>\n<li>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\u2011led coalition brief are yet evident on the current Supreme Court docket.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Court of Appeals<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=l_z9DXsv2rI&amp;t=66s\"><strong>YouTube video<\/strong><\/a>, Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/youtube.com\/\"><strong>YouTube.com<\/strong><\/a>), explains why a Fifth Circuit en banc denial in a federal machine gun case (U.S. v. Wilson) and why, from a pro\u20112A strategy perspective, it\u2019s actually good that the court did\u00a0not\u00a0strike down the federal machine gun ban right now.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Texas: Fifth Circuit<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>United States v. Wilson, No.\u00a024\u201110633\u00a0(5th Cir.).\u00a0<\/strong>Smith\u2019s video explains a Fifth Circuit en banc denial in a federal machine gun case and why, from a pro\u20112A strategy perspective, it\u2019s actually beneficial that the court did\u00a0not\u00a0strike down the federal machine gun ban at this time.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case posture and vote<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Damian Wilson used a Glock with an auto\u2011sear (\u201cGlock switch\u201d) to kill someone and was convicted of unlawful machine\u2011gun possession under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922.<\/li>\n<li>A three\u2011judge Fifth Circuit panel affirmed his conviction; Wilson then sought rehearing en banc before the full court (17 active judges).<\/li>\n<li>The court voted 10\u20137 to deny rehearing en banc, so the panel decision stands and the machine\u2011gun ban remains in effect in this case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Strategic Second Amendment angle<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Smith\u2019s 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.<\/li>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>He wants the \u201chardware\u201d docket ordered: first an AR\u201115 ban case, then magazines, then suppressors, and only later machine guns, preferably through state \u201coutlier\u201d laws rather than federal law challenges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>The opinions: concurrence (10) and dissents (7)<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Two judges who voted to deny rehearing en banc, Judge Don Willett and Judge Jennifer Elrod, wrote a concurrence suggesting that the federal machine\u2011gun ban is constitutionally questionable but that Wilson\u2019s case is a poor vehicle to decide it.<\/li>\n<li>They highlight the \u201cbelt and suspenders\u201d 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\u2019s hard to call \u201cmillions of machine guns registered with ATF\u201d \u201cunusual\u201d for dangerous\u2011and\u2011unusual analysis (Smith disputes their figures, claiming there are only about 160,000 civilian\u2011owned transferable MGs).<\/li>\n<li>Seven judges dissented from the denial and called for an en banc review to revisit old anti-2A precedent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Judges Odum and Ho:\u00a0<\/strong>Judge Andrew Oldham and Judge James Ho write strong pro\u20112A dissents, arguing there is no historical basis for banning machine guns.<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>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\u2011era jurisdiction banned specific arms, ammo, or accessories except for a narrow 1686 East New Jersey Quaker carry restriction on handguns and knives.<\/li>\n<li>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\u201345 to be armed (Militia Act of 1792).<\/li>\n<li>Smith frames these dissents as both excellent 2A writing and, realistically, as \u201cauditions\u201d for the next Supreme Court vacancy, alongside other judges like David Stras (8th Cir.) and Lawrence VanDyke (9th Cir.).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Vehicle problem and\u00a0<\/strong><strong>\u201c<\/strong><strong>bearable arms\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Willett and Elrod\u2019s concurrence notes that \u00a7 922(o) (post\u20111986 machine\u2011gun ban) covers not just bearable machine guns but also non\u2011bearable weapons, such as guns that can only be mounted on tanks or aircraft.<\/li>\n<li>Because the Second Amendment text and Heller\/Bruen protect \u201cbearable\u201d arms, a facial challenge to \u00a7 922(o) may fail if the statute has constitutional applications to non\u2011bearable weapons, even if there are serious issues when applied to civilian\u2011owned, bearable machine guns.<\/li>\n<li>Smith says that\u2019s why they viewed Wilson as a poor vehicle, not because they believe the ban is fundamentally fine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Movement strategy and criminal defendants<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Smith warns that criminal defendants and federal defenders will keep raising 2A defenses in machine\u2011gun and auto\u2011sear cases because their interest is getting out of prison, not guarding long\u2011term doctrine.<\/li>\n<li>Eventually, a machine\u2011gun case could produce a pro\u20112A circuit ruling, which would then go to SCOTUS at a bad time and likely lose, cementing anti\u20112A precedent \u201cfor decades.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>He analogizes to the LGBT rights litigation path: they did not jump straight to same\u2011sex marriage in the early 1970s but moved incrementally; he wants similar incrementalism for 2A, winning AR\u201115, magazine, and suppressor cases first.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>U.S. District Court<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Hawaii: Ninth District (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii).<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Justin Arnold, Bryan Garland, James Grell, Andrew<\/strong><strong>\u00a0W<\/strong><strong>hite\u00a0<\/strong><strong>v. Hawaii County;\u00a0<\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.hid.177167\/gov.uscourts.hid.177167.20.0.pdf\">CIVIL NO. CV 26-00064-SASP-RT<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Hawaii entered a stipulated judgment that allows non\u2011residents 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\u2019s resident\u2011only CCW restriction as to those plaintiffs and HRA members.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key legal takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The case was brought under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 and the Second Amendment.<\/li>\n<li>The permanent injunction bars Hawaii from enforcing its residency\u2011based prohibition against obtaining a concealed carry license, but only as to Sinsky and HRA members, reflecting Article III\u2019s case\u2011or\u2011controversy and redressability limits.<\/li>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>This case is consistent with long\u2011standing Supreme Court doctrine on organizational standing (e.g., NAACP, NRA\u2011type cases) and post\u2011Trump v. CASA limits on universal injunctions.<\/li>\n<li>The judgment includes an award of attorneys\u2019 fees against the state, underscoring that Hawaii had to effectively \u201croll over\u201d rather than defend its non\u2011resident ban on the merits in light of Bruen\u2011era Second Amendment doctrine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Practical implications<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A non\u2011resident who wants to carry concealed in Hawaii can join the Hawaii Rifle Association and then apply for a CCW under this judgment; non\u2011members technically remain outside the injunction and would need either to join HRA or bring their own suit.<\/li>\n<li>Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/youtube.com\/\">YouTube.com<\/a>), who reviews current cases,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=e5TH9j2qW4U&amp;t=13s\">presents<\/a>\u00a0this as another incremental Bruen\u2011driven 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\u2019Grady.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Grassroots Judicial Report\u2014May 13, 2026 By Tanya Metaksa What\u2019s New\u00a0\u2014SCOTUS\u2014Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States of America: Docket No. 25\u20111190: Current certiorari petition before U.S. Supreme Court; Fourth Circuit\u2019s ruling: The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in\u00a0United States v. Patrick Adamiak, No. 23\u20114451 (4th Cir. 2025): U.S. District Court: Hawaii: Ninth District &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116741\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=116741"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116741\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":116742,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116741\/revisions\/116742"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=116741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=116741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=116741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}