Brad Wendt, the Chief of Police of Adair, Iowa, also owned two firearms stores. After obtaining Special Occupancy Tax status allowing him to purchase machine guns, he began writing “law letters” on Adair Police Department letterhead — ninety of them over four years. He claimed machine guns were for official police use or demonstration for potential future purchase. Instead, he resold them for substantial profit, including Heckler & Koch MP7A2s purchased for $2,080 and sold for $25,000 each.
A jury convicted Wendt of false statements, conspiracy, and illegal possession of a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The final conviction arose from an April 16, 2022 machine gun shoot in Woodbine, Iowa — fifty-seven miles from Adair. Wendt was off duty, out of uniform, and working his private business. He brought an M60 machine gun registered to the Adair Police Department. Civilians paid BW Outfitters for ammunition to fire it. No law enforcement personnel were in uniform. Three sheriff’s deputies fired machine guns at no charge.
Wendt appealed, arguing § 922(o)(2)(A)’s public authority exception — permitting possession “by or under the authority of” a state or political subdivision — was unconstitutionally vague as applied to a police chief.
Under § 922(o)(2)(A), the public authority exception to machine gun possession requires the possession to be “by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.” The statute does not define authority or how one would demonstrate that he has the political subdivision’s or department’s authority.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the possession conviction on vagueness grounds, affirming the remaining convictions and sentence.
The Court held that a person of ordinary intelligence in Wendt’s position would not have fair notice that possessing a city-registered machine gun at the shoot was illegal. As police chief, he had inherent authority to direct departmental operations and manage city-owned weapons. Iowa law explicitly permits certified peace officers to “go armed anywhere in the state at all times.” The city council members confirmed Wendt had responsibility for city-owned weapons.
The Court also found the exception invited arbitrary enforcement. The government’s theory turned on factors not in the statute — being off duty, out of uniform, fifty-seven miles away, at a business-sponsored event. This left prosecutors to define criminal behavior without statutory guidance. Could an officer be charged for having a machine gun in a patrol car while on a meal break? In plainclothes? Five miles outside city limits? The lack of clear answers demonstrated the risk of arbitrary enforcement, and the ambiguity was resolved in Wendt’s favor.
The Court reversed the conviction and remanded to the district court to vacate the conviction. All other matters raised on appeal were affirmed.
United States v. Wendt, 2026 WL 590145 (8th Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (No. 24-2458).