In a closely watched decision released on March 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a split ruling in United States v. Brad Wendt. The court unanimously affirmed Brad Wendt’s convictions for making false statements to the ATF and conspiracy to defraud the agency, but reversed his conviction for illegal possession of a machine gun. The 2-1 decision spotlights deep divisions over the scope of federal machine-gun prohibitions when applied to law-enforcement officers and provokes significant questions about vagueness, statutory interpretation, and Second Amendment protections.
Judge David Stras, in a concurrence, went further, arguing that Wendt’s possession of the department-owned weapon was never criminal at all. Judge Jane Kelly dissented only on the possession count, warning that the majority’s vagueness analysis strayed into hypotheticals not before the court.
Brad Wendt’s story reads like a cautionary narrative at the intersection of small-town policing and the firearms industry. Since 2013, Wendt owned and operated two federal firearms licensees (FFLs) in Anita and Denison, Iowa, under the name BW Outfitters. In 2016, he obtained Special Occupational Tax (SOT) status, allowing legal dealing in machine guns, highly restricted weapons whose civilian possession has been effectively frozen since 1986 under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
On July 2, 2018, Wendt was sworn in as Chief of Police for Adair, Iowa, a town of fewer than 800 residents with only two full-time officers. As chief, Wendt gained authority to issue “law letters” on official Adair Police Department letterhead. These letters authorized transfers of machine guns either for “official use” by the department or for “demonstration” to help the agency decide on future purchases.
Between July 2018 and July 2022, Wendt authored approximately 90 such letters. Prosecutors alleged, and the jury found, that many were fraudulent. Wendt purchased machine guns with his personal funds, registered them to the tiny police department, and then resold them at massive markups. One example: Heckler & Koch MP7A2s bought for $2,080 each and sold for $25,000 apiece. Over time, he profited roughly $79,660 from guns registered to Adair.
He also wrote demonstration letters for other FFL-SOTs, including Robert Williams and Jonathan Marcum, knowing the Adair department had zero interest in the weapons. Marcum later pleaded guilty to related charges.
The scheme culminated on April 16, 2022, when BW Outfitters hosted a commercial “machine gun shoot” in Woodbine, Iowa, 57 miles from Adair. Wendt attended off-duty, out of uniform. His business supplied ammunition, and at least eleven machine guns, including a U.S. Ordnance M60 registered to the Adair Police Department. Civilians paid to shoot; law-enforcement attendees shot for free. Undercover ATF agents were present.
A federal jury convicted Wendt on nine counts of false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)), one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and one count of illegal machine-gun possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)). He received a below-Guidelines 60-month sentence, a $50,000 fine, and forfeiture of fifteen firearms.
On appeal, Wendt challenged jury instructions on the false-statement counts and the sufficiency of evidence for possession. The panel unanimously rejected his arguments on the § 1001 convictions.
Judge L. Steven Erickson, writing for the majority, held that the district court’s instructions accurately tracked the statutory elements and the specific false representations Wendt made in his law letters. Wendt had certified that the guns were for “official use” and “not for resale” or that demonstrations were sought for potential future purchase by Adair; statements the jury found knowingly false.
Erickson dismissed Wendt’s request for a “Harra-style” ambiguity instruction, noting that, unlike the complex banking guidance in United States v. Harra, the ATF regulations here were unambiguous: transfers must be for genuine official use or legitimate demonstration.
The court also upheld the Guidelines calculation, confirming the district court properly associated the false-statement counts with the firearms guideline under USSG § 2B1.1(c)(3).
The real fireworks came on Count 20, the standalone § 922(o) possession charge involving the M60 at the Woodbine shoot.
Section 922(o) bans machine-gun possession except for transfers or possession “by or under the authority of” a government agency (§ 922(o)(2)(A)). Erickson concluded that this “public authority” exception is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Wendt.
A person of ordinary intelligence, Erickson wrote, would not have fair notice that a police chief lacks authority to transport a department-registered machine gun to a law-enforcement-friendly shooting event even if off-duty and sponsored by his private business. The statute and ATF regulations provide no guidance on off-duty status, geographic limits, uniform requirements, or commercial context.
Citing United States v. Vest, Erickson noted that the exception invites arbitrary enforcement: the government could, in theory, charge an officer with leaving a gun in a patrol car during a meal break but not during official duties. The rule of lenity resolved the remaining ambiguity in Wendt’s favor.
Accordingly, the court vacated the possession conviction, remanded for vacatur of the special assessment, and left Wendt’s 60-month sentence intact (the counts ran concurrently).
Judge Stras concurred in the judgment but on wider grounds. He argued Wendt’s conduct was lawful under both § 922(o)(2)(A) and the separate exemption in § 925(a)(1), which protects firearms “imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of” any state or local government from most federal prohibitions.
As police chief, Wendt possessed actual and implied authority under Iowa law to manage and transport department weapons even off-duty and outside city limits. Iowa Code § 724.6(1)(c) expressly allows certified peace officers to “go armed anywhere in the state at all times.”
Stras further invoked the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Historical analogues show sheriffs and peace officers have long carried “dangerous” weapons without restriction. There is no tradition of prosecuting officers for possessing government-issued arms.
“Federal law recognizes a broad exception to the machine-gun ban for any held by state or local governments,” Stras wrote. “The point is that, even though Wendt criminally misled the ATF… he did not illegally ‘possess [the city’s] machinegun.’”
🚨UPDATE🚨
The 8th Circuit vacated a conviction for “illegal possession of a machinegun” in a case where GOF & @gunowners filed an amicus brief.
The court held that Chief Wendt lawfully possessed the firearm “under the authority of” the State of Iowa at a community shoot. pic.twitter.com/OTh2RnyV01
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) March 3, 2026
Judge Kelly concurred in the false-statement holdings but dissented on possession. She argued that Wendt’s specific conduct off-duty, 57 miles away, at a for-profit event where civilians paid to shoot a police-registered gun, fell plainly outside any reasonable reading of “under the authority of” the Adair Police Department.
The jury had already rejected Wendt’s “government authority” defense after proper instructions. Kelly warned against hypothetical vagueness analysis: “We do not speculate about possible vagueness in hypothetical situations not before the Court.”
The decision is a clear win for Wendt on the most serious count but leaves his fraud convictions and 60-month sentence intact. More broadly, it spotlights persistent ambiguity in federal machine-gun law when law-enforcement officers wear multiple hats.
For FFL-SOTs and police departments, the ruling illustrates the perils of “law letters.” False certifications about official use or demonstration intent remain prosecutable even if the underlying possession might be protected.
Gun-rights advocates will celebrate Stras’s concurrence for its textualist and historical analysis, potentially allowing passage to further challenges against § 922(o) as applied to government actors. Some critics may worry that the vagueness holding creates uncertainty for prosecutors nationwide.
Legal observers note the Eighth Circuit’s inclination to engage Bruen analysis even in a non-Second Amendment facial challenge. With machine-gun cases increasingly reaching appellate courts post-Bruen, today’s opinion adds a significant data point.
Wendt’s case now returns to the Southern District of Iowa for ministerial cleanup. Whether the government seeks en banc review or Supreme Court review remains to be seen, particularly given the circuit split potential created by Stras’s broader reasoning.
For now, Brad Wendt is no longer a convicted illegal machine-gun possessor. But the federal government’s successful prosecution of his fraudulent scheme acts as a stark reminder that even small-town police chiefs cannot treat public authority as a blank check for private profit.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
