Federal Judge Dismisses Machine Gun Charges Citing 2nd Amendment
U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes, a President Trump appointee, dismissed two counts of machine gun possession, questioning whether bans on the weapons violates the Second Amendment. The decision has yet to be appealed, however, if upheld it could initiate a sweeping impact on machine gun regulations moving forward.
On August 21, the Wichita, Kansas Federal Judge threw out the charges against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted last year, accused of possessing a machine gun converted Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 in 300BLK as well as a “Glock switch,” turning the popular semi-automatic handgun also into a machine gun. Invoking the June 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Judge Broomes stated that the government “has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical firearm regulation tradition.”
The Bruen decision has been seen as a major victory for gun rights advocates, one that changes the landscape when it comes to the right to carry firearms in public, however, it is clear that the full potential of the decision has yet to be realized.
Opposition
An associate law professor at Pepperdine University, Jacob Charles, called the Kansas ruling a direct fallout resulting from the Bruen decision, arguing that he expects Judge Broomes’ decision to be overturned, citing Supreme Court precedent allowing for the regulation of machine guns, a sentiment shared by federal prosecutors in earlier court filings. Shira Feldman of Brady United described the ruling as “an incredibly dangerous decision, and it’s inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment means.”
The irony that the opposition, who bash the Bruen decision, now calls for the same body to rule against it, does not escape me, nor does the assumption that the Supreme Court is not capable of going back and ruling that one of their previous decisions may not have been prudent.
It will be interesting to see where this goes next, and the subject is plenty capable of sparking multiple debates. Do you think firearms capable of fully automatic fire should be banned from the general public after a certain year of manufacture? Do you feel they should be regulated? To that matter, do you find the regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles under the NFA unconstitutional? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
2A enthusiast. If it shoots, I get behind it, from cameras to firearms. | DTOE = Darwin's Theory on Everything | Instagram, YouTube, X: @dtoe_official
More by Darwin N.
Comments
Join the conversation
Well I think that not everyone should have easy access to full Auto, we all know there are plenty of unstable people out there. I do agree that there should not be a manufacture date set, all that does is like usual benefit the rich. Suppressors, no regulation, even the heavy gun law countries let people just buy them without issue.
Now the 2nd, it really kind of states that the people should have a militia for they can compete with a tyrant Gov., well one cannot stand a chance when the people's choice of weapon's VS the Gov. is so inferior, so the people need the same weapon's as the Gov., but be it a well regulated militia, not everyone resident owning full auto, 50 bmg's, mini gun's, rocket launchers etc.. Perhaps the National Guard could be the people's army, but answer to the people not the Gov., but still protect against invasions, but if deemed they would go against the Gov. not the people.
And yes there would need to be a solid entity over seeing them to keep them in check.
Persons that are too dangerous and unstable to have fully automatic weapons should not have any weapons and should be contained away from the greater population.
The weapon is not dangerous, the person is. The weapon only makes already dangerous persons more dangerous.
Bearable arms are bearable arms.