Here is a link to the district court's decision. Raich raises its ugly head again.Yessir.
Edited to add:
Hollis appealed to the 5th Circuit and lost there as well. The ruling is here.
In a strange bit of irony the 5th Circuit, in discussing that machineguns could be banned because they are "unusual", offered this tidbit:
Heller concluded that handguns are “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home” and are therefore not unusual.
The National Firearms Act (which regulates machine guns) originally included handguns in its scope. During debate handguns were removed from the scope in part due to argument that they were particularly necessary for females which couldn't handle rifles and shotguns.
It is ironic that today, under Heller, handguns are now the quintessentially protected arm - at the core of the 2nd amendment right. Yet if the NFA had passed as originally written, they too would have been "unusual" today. When a firearm is unusual only because of a long-standing unconstitutional law it seems perverse to use that fact as the primary argument against their status as protected arms.