Federal Judge Dismisses Machine Gun Charges, Citing Constitutional Concerns
A Kansas federal judge has dismissed charges against a man for possessing a machine gun, stating prosecutors failed to prove the ban's constitutionality. This marks the first such ruling since a 2022 Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights.
In a groundbreaking decision, a federal judge in Wichita, Kansas, has dismissed charges against a man accused of possessing a machine gun. The ruling, issued on August 21, 2024, marks a significant shift in the interpretation of gun laws following a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2022.
U.S. District Judge John Broomes, appointed by former President Donald Trump, stated that prosecutors failed to establish the constitutionality of the federal ban on machine guns. This decision appears to be the first of its kind since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded gun rights and established a new test for assessing firearms laws.
The case centered around Tamori Morgan, who was indicted in 2023 for allegedly possessing a machine gun and a "Glock switch," a device that converts semi-automatic pistols to fully automatic. Judge Broomes argued that prosecutors did not provide sufficient historical analogues to support the charges against Morgan.
The ruling has sparked debate about the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791 and guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, first developed in the late 19th century, have been subject to federal regulation since the National Firearms Act of 1934, enacted after their widespread use by criminals during the Prohibition Era (1920-1933).
Judge Broomes' decision challenges the longstanding restrictions on machine guns, including the outright ban implemented in 1986. The judge stated that machine guns and Glock switches fall within the "plain text of the Second Amendment" as bearable arms.
Prosecutors argued that historical laws from the 18th and 19th centuries banning "dangerous or unusual weapons" provided a basis for current restrictions. However, Judge Broomes noted that these historical examples focused on the use of such weapons to terrorize the public, not mere possession.
The ruling has drawn criticism from gun safety advocates. Everytown Law, a prominent gun safety group, called the decision "extreme and reckless." The U.S. Department of Justice has the option to appeal the ruling, potentially setting the stage for a higher court to weigh in on the issue.
This case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the balance between individual rights and public safety. The Supreme Court's Bruen decision in 2022 established a new "text, history, and tradition" test for gun laws, requiring modern firearms restrictions to have a "historical analogue" to be considered valid.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may have far-reaching implications for gun regulations across the United States. It underscores the complex interplay between constitutional rights, public safety concerns, and the interpretation of historical precedents in modern legal contexts.
"The machinegun and Glock switch are bearable arms within the plain text of the Second Amendment."
The case of Tamori Morgan serves as a focal point for the ongoing national conversation about gun rights and regulations. As the Department of Justice considers its next steps, legal experts and policymakers will be closely watching for potential appeals and further developments in this contentious area of law.
