Federal Judge Declares Machine Gun Ban Unconstitutional

On Friday, a significant ruling emerged from a federal court in which Judge John Broomes favored Kansas resident Tamori Morgan, who had been charged with possessing a machine gun. In a landmark decision, the judge dismissed all charges against Morgan, declaring them unconstitutional.

Morgan was confronted with accusations of illegally possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a “Glock switch”—a device designed to convert a standard Glock handgun into an automatic weapon. According to the Daily Caller, these charges fell under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits any transfer or possession of machine guns.

The court’s ruling pivoted on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, with Judge Broomes asserting that the government’s burden of proof rested on demonstrating a historical precedent that could justify a ban on such firearms. He underscored that under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, any restrictions on gun ownership must correlate with historical regulations.

A machine gun possession charge was dismissed by a district court in Kansas yesterday on Second Amendment grounds. The court found that machine guns are clearly bearable arms, and in this case, at least, the government failed to show a historical tradition to justify their ban.
— Kostas Moros

This ruling aligns with recent trends in legal interpretation surrounding gun rights. For example, in May 2024, another federal judge ruled against the Biden administration’s effort to enforce a rule mandating background checks for gun purchases made at gun shows or similar venues. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk blocked the new regulations, arguing they infringed upon the Second Amendment and imposed undue burdens on lawful sellers.

All federal gun laws (and under the Leftist attempts to make all state laws agree with federal, state laws) should be considered unconstitutional. It is a fundamental right, and interestingly enough, 18 USC 922 has been hit twice in different federal districts.
— Kyle Seraphin

As the conversation around gun rights continues to evolve, this court ruling highlights a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over the balance between public safety and constitutional rights. The Justice Department’s potential appeal remains uncertain, with observers anticipating a vigorous debate on gun legislation heading into the coming years.

The plaintiffs in both cases have voiced concerns that these rulings reflect deeper constitutional implications. Many Republicans, supported by a variety of gun rights groups, argue that the recent judicial decisions mark a significant step toward restoring a more expansive interpretation of Second Amendment protections.

The context is further complicated by Congress’ historical attempts to regulate machine guns, beginning with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and further reinforced by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Critics of the existing laws argue they collectively fail to align with a principled understanding of the Second Amendment’s intent.

In the wake of these judicial outcomes, legal scholars and commentators have weighed in on what these rulings mean for the future of gun legislation. A growing consensus appears to indicate that any federal attempts to impose sweeping regulations could face major legal challenges.

As noted by legal experts, “The courts are returning to a more originalist view of the Second Amendment, focusing on the rights of individuals rather than government regulations.” These insights emphasize the judicial system’s potential role as a check on executive power concerning firearms regulations.

“The ruling is a pivotal moment for the future of gun rights in America,” said David Kopel, an established expert on gun law. “If the government wants to make restrictions, there must be historical support rather than a vague desire to limit rights for the sake of safety.”

Trends in Legal Precedents

These recent cases underscore a critical moment in firearms law, where courts are increasingly scrutinizing the legitimacy of government restrictions on gun ownership. This trend could signal an upcoming wave of challenges against restrictive gun laws, akin to the challenges seen in states like Texas and Arkansas, where Republican attorneys general have filed lawsuits to oppose federal regulations.

“It’s evident that the judiciary is playing a crucial role in shaping how the Second Amendment is interpreted and enforced,” remarked constitutional law scholar Adam Winkler. “As the interpretation of the law evolves, we can expect more litigation that will challenge the status quo concerning gun ownership.”

This analysis begs the question: how might future court decisions influence not only the public’s perception of gun rights but also the operational landscape for firearm legislation across the