OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A federal judge ruled in favor of Kansas resident Tamori Morgan last month after he was charged with possessing a machine gun, dismissing the allegations completely after declaring them unconstitutional.
Morgan faced two counts of illegal machine gun possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which makes it unlawful for anyone to transfer or possess such weapons, the Daily Caller reported. U.S. District Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee, ruled that the ban was a violation of the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”
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. pic.twitter.com/tCou5USFmE
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) August 22, 2024
According to court filings, prosecutors charged Morgan with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a “Glock switch,” a device that converts a Glock into an automatic weapon.
Broomes argued that it is the federal government’s duty to prove that there is a historical precedent for the charges against Morgan. The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established a legal precedent that gun restrictions are constitutional only if they adhere to a historical tradition of firearms regulation in the U.S.
New York had mandated that individuals must demonstrate a “special need” to obtain an unrestricted concealed carry license. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense is deeply rooted in American history.
Congress sought to regulate machine guns with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and later prohibited their possession with the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 without obtaining a special license and paying an annual fee, along with registering those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Prosecutors argued that Tamori’s weapons did not fall under Second Amendment protections.
But Broomes vehemently disagreed, stating they are protected “within the original meaning of the amendment.” He said the government failed to justify the law’s application in this case.
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.
I’m here for it… pic.twitter.com/JFBhgHTDzW
— Kyle Seraphin (@KyleSeraphin) August 23, 2024
It’s not clear if the Biden-Harris Justice Department will appeal Broomes’ ruling, according to the Caller, but that seems likely.
Meanwhile, in May, another federal judge <a href=”https://conservativebrief.com/federal-blocks-83273/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>ruled</a> that the Biden-Harris administration could not enforce a gun sale rule in Texas that required firearms dealers to conduct background checks on gun show buyers or other places outside of their brick-and-mortar locations.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, another Trump appointee, issued a ruling just before a new regulation was set to take effect. His order blocks the federal government from enforcing the rule against several gun-rights groups, including Gun Owners of America. However, the ruling does not apply to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, which are also parties to the lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs understandably fear that these presumptions will trigger civil or criminal penalties for conduct deemed lawful just yesterday,” Kacsmaryk wrote in his decision.
Earlier that month, twenty-six Republican attorneys general filed lawsuits in federal courts in Arkansas, Florida, and Texas to prevent the enforcement of a new rule. The plaintiffs claim that the rule infringes upon the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and argue that President Joe Biden lacks the authority to implement it.
