The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and 18-month sentence of Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher for illegal possession of a machine gun under federal firearms laws, rejecting his constitutional challenge to the federal prohibition.
The court issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on Jan. 9, 2026, in *United States v. Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher* (4th Cir. 2026), upholding Fisher's guilty plea conviction from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Asheville. Fisher had been sentenced to 18 months in prison for violating federal law prohibiting machine gun possession.
Fisher pleaded guilty to possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). The federal statute 922(o) generally prohibits the possession, transfer, or manufacture of machine guns, with limited exceptions for law enforcement and military use. Violations can result in up to 10 years in prison.
The case reached the appeals court after Fisher's counsel filed an Anders brief, a special type of appellate brief used when defense attorneys believe there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Named after *Anders v. California* (S. Ct. 1967), these briefs allow counsel to withdraw from cases while still fulfilling their duty to zealously represent clients.
Despite finding no strong appellate issues, Fisher's federal public defenders questioned whether Section 922(o) violates the Second Amendment either facially or as applied to Fisher specifically. This constitutional challenge formed the primary basis for the appeal, even as counsel acknowledged the limited prospects for success.
The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges King, Harris, and Heytens, examined whether the federal machine gun prohibition is consistent with Second Amendment protections. In addressing Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations, courts typically apply a two-step analysis examining whether the regulated conduct falls within the scope of Second Amendment protection and, if so, what level of constitutional scrutiny applies.
Chief District Judge Martin K. Reidinger had presided over the original criminal case in the Western District of North Carolina. The case was designated 1:23-cr-00045-MR-WCM-1, indicating it was filed in 2023 as a criminal matter in the Asheville division.
Fisher was represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office in Charlotte, with John G. Baker serving as Federal Public Defender and Assistant Federal Public Defender Ashley A. Askari handling the brief. The government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Amy Elizabeth Ray from the Asheville office.
Notably, the government declined to file a response brief to Fisher's appeal, suggesting prosecutors viewed the constitutional challenge as lacking merit. Fisher himself chose not to file a pro se supplemental brief despite being informed of his right to do so, meaning the case proceeded solely on his counsel's Anders brief.
The appeals court submitted the case on Nov. 21, 2025, and decided it less than two months later. The quick turnaround reflects the straightforward nature of the legal issues and the court's determination that no meritorious grounds existed for overturning Fisher's conviction.
The opinion was issued as an unpublished per curiam decision, meaning it carries no binding precedential value within the Fourth Circuit. Unpublished opinions cannot be cited as controlling authority in future cases, though they may be referenced for their persuasive value.
Federal machine gun prosecutions have become increasingly common as law enforcement focuses on illegal weapons trafficking and possession. The National Firearms Act and subsequent federal legislation have created a comprehensive regulatory framework governing machine guns, with the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act effectively banning civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
Second Amendment challenges to machine gun prohibitions have generally been unsuccessful in federal courts. Most circuits have found that machine guns fall outside Second Amendment protection or that regulations satisfy intermediate scrutiny given the government's substantial interest in public safety.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction includes Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court regularly handles federal firearms cases given the prevalence of gun-related prosecutions in the region.
Fisher's case represents a typical example of how federal firearms prosecutions proceed through the court system. Most defendants plead guilty to avoid longer sentences that might result from trial convictions, and appeals often focus on constitutional challenges rather than factual disputes.
The affirmance means Fisher's conviction and sentence remain intact. The case demonstrates the continued judicial reluctance to expand Second Amendment protections to cover weapons like machine guns that courts view as falling outside the scope of individual self-defense rights protected by the Constitution.