Eleventh Circuit Hears Appeal in CRS Firearms AutoKeyCard Case
A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard the appeal of Matthew Hoover and Kristopher Justin Ervin.
Mr. Hoover and Mr. Ervin were convicted of selling machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) and sentenced to prison time by a Florida District Court. Mr. Ervin designed and sold a product called the AutoKeyCard. The AutoKeyCard was a thin metal card with a light etching inspired by a lightning link. A lightning link is a two-part device that drops into the trigger housing of an AR-15 equipped with a specific bolt carrier group (BCG). The device allows the semi-automatic AR-15 to act as an automatic firearm. According to Ervin, the card was intended to spark a conversation about the ineffectiveness of gun control.
Mr. Hoover ran a YouTube channel called CRS Firearms. CRS Firearms discussed gun laws, court cases, and firearms. The channel was popular amongst the Second Amendment Community. Mr. Ervin contracted with Hoover to advertise the product on his popular YouTube channel. At no time did Hoover own or operate any part of the AutoKeyCard website or business. Mr. Ervin was arrested for selling the card, which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) claimed violated the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Mr. Hoover raised funds for Ervin’s legal defense. The government claimed the fundraiser was a conspiracy to free Ervin so the two could resume selling the AutoKeyCard, and therefore decided to indict Hoover for trafficking machine guns and conspiracy as well.
The District Court forbade the plaintiffs from using the Second Amendment as a defense and instructed the jury that the device was a machine gun. The jury would convict both men of trafficking machine guns in April 2023 and send both to prison.
The men appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral arguments were heard in the appeal on September 11, 2025.
Valerie Lennon represented Ervin, and Matthew Larosiere represented Hoover. The panel consisted of William Pryor (George W. Bush appointee), Nancy Abudu (Joe Biden appointee and former SPLC lawyer), and Elizabeth Branch (Donald Trump appointee).
Ms. Lennon opened oral arguments by presenting an Apple titanium credit card, stating that it was not much different from the AutoKeyCard. Judge Pryor shot back and noted that the AutoKeyCard and the Apple titanium credit card were different. The lawyer explained that an AutoKeyCard was a single part. Not a combination of parts, as the federal statute requires to be considered an MCD. Judge Pryor shot back and stated that “the jury thought otherwise.”
Judge Pryor also attempted to quash any discussion of the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity states that if a law is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in favor of the defendant. He said there might be vagueness in the law, but that isn’t the same as ambiguity. Ms. Lennon pointed out that the statute does not cover raw materials or precursor parts. She said that at most, an AutoKeyCard was a precursor part.
Judge Branch inquired about the videos Hoover had made about the AutoKeyCard. Ms. Lennon stated that it was his freedom of speech to make such videos. Judge Pryor shot back and noted that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech where there is crime. He seemed to imply that Hoover’s videos were imparting some type of criminal knowledge to his viewers.
Judge Abudu inquired about the Supreme Court’s Vanderstok opinion, which held that privately manufactured firearms (PMF) kits like the ones previously sold by Polymer80 could be treated as firearms. Ms. Lennon shot back, highlighting the amount of work required to convert an AutoKeyCard into a functioning Lightning link, and all the additional parts needed to make it work far exceeded the amount of work necessary to finish a polymer frame.
After Ms. Lennon finished, the floor was handed over to Mr. Larosiere to argue on behalf of his client, Matthew Hoover. He started by stating that it’s ridiculous to consider a drawing a machine gun. Judge Pryor shot back, saying that it was more than a drawing because it was etched, not a drawing on paper. He also stated that it was true to scale.
Mr. Larosiere corrected the judge by reminding him that ATF Firearms Examiner Cody Toy had to cut outside the lines and even then couldn’t get it to work as expected. He pointed out that the card was merely a drawing on a piece of metal that required material alteration and was not a combination of parts. Judge Abudu jumped in and disagreed, arguing that it was more than just a drawing. The judges wanted to know how much had to be cut out before Larosiere would consider it a combination of parts. Mr. Larosiere stated that he didn’t have an answer, but it definitely would have to be more than a single card.
After the defense presented its arguments, it was the federal government’s turn to argue its case. Gregory W. Kehoe, who tried to compare the AutoKeyCard to a punch-out puzzle in his brief, leaned heavily on Mr. Hoover’s comment about “scratching the full auto itch” in his video as proof that the AutoKeyCard was an MCD. As to the AutoKeyCard not working, he stated that it might work in another gun and that all AR-15s have different tolerances.
Kehoe claimed that FE Toy was a novice, and any novice could convert the AutoKeyCard into a lightning link. Leaving out the part that FE Toy was a Marine Corps armorer, a fact later brought up by Larosiere during his rebuttal. He compared the AutoKeyCard to a piece of furniture purchased from Ikea. Kehoe went further and stated that it didn’t matter that FE Toy had to cut the AutoKeyCard in such a way that it didn’t follow the lines or couldn’t function as expected. He relied on the men’s perceived “intent.”
Judge Pryor asked him the same question that he had requested of Larosiere. What is the line where the card becomes a combination of parts? Mr. Kehoe could not answer.
There is no timetable for the judges to issue their ruling on the appeal. If unsuccessful, the defendant can request an en banc hearing, where the full bench would hear the case. They could also proceed directly to the Supreme Court.
DOJ Attempt to Gag Reporters on High-Profile 2A Case Meets Resistance & Retraction
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.
Read MoreAmmoLand Shooting Sports News