“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The police chief of a small Iowa town challenged his conviction for possession of a machine gun in his private capacity for use in his private business.
What has happened in this case?
Brad Wendt is the police chief of Adair Iowa and the owner and operator of several small businesses that use and sell guns. He was charged with and convicted of violating federal law banning possession of a machine gun while off duty. In particular, Wendt used machine guns at a private shooting event some 50 miles from Adair for his gun shop.
On appeal, Trump judge Ralph Erickson reversed the possession in a 2-1 opinion in US v Wendt. Trump judge David Stras concurred in the result, while Obama appointee Jane Kelly dissented.
What were the rationales of Trump judges Erickson and Stras?
Trump judge Erickson reversed the conviction because he maintained that the federal law was vague as applied to Wendt because it was unclear whether his conduct at the gun show could be considered “under the authority” of the Adair police department and thus not banned by federal law. Stras wrote that in his view, Wendt’s possession and use of the machine gun at the gun show was under the authority of the Adair police department.
What did Judge Kelly say in dissent?
Judge Kelly explained that based on past precedent and the facts in the case, a person of “ordinary intelligence” would understand Wendt’s possession and use of the machine gun at the gun show was not “under the authority” of his police department, and thus the vagueness claim was invalid. With respect to Stras’ theory, she went on, the jury had found that Wendt did not show that his possession and use of the machine gun was under the authority of the police department, and the court of appeals should not “disturb” that finding. There was simply no legal justification, she concluded, for Wendt’s conduct in “possessing a machine gun at a commercial event and allowing non-officers to shoot it.”
Why is the result harmful?.
The decision of Trump judges Erickson and Stras obviously exonerates someone who possessed and used a machine gun and sets a bad precedent relating to abuse of authority by police acting in their private capacity. This is particularly so in the Eighth Circuit, which includes Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.