In layman’s terms: A Kansas district court judge dismissed charges against a man for machinegun possession citing lack of historical precedent.
In a highly unusual, although Constitutionally-based decision, yesterday a United States District Court judge dismissed charges against a man for machine gun possession citing the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
Judge John W. Broomes, serving in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, issued a simple 10 page decision that referenced the plain text of the Second Amendment as well as Bruen, Heller, and Rahimi, all Supreme Court cases that have set major precedent with regard to the Second Amendment.
In a case known as US v. Morgan, Tamori Morgan was charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He possessed an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 and a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a firearm to fire as an automatic weapon.
In just two sentences, the court provided reasoning for dismissing the charge, leveraging the 27 simple words in the text of the Second Amendment and the guiding principles put forth in the 2022 landmark Bruen decision:
The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are “bearable arms” within the original meaning of the amendment. The court further finds that the government has failed to establish that this nation’s history of gun regulation justifies the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) to Defendant.
The court also referenced the unassailable history in Miller which shows that civilians not only possessed military-style arms, but were compelled to possess such arms!
The Court surveyed several laws from that era that not only permitted, but essentially required, law-abiding citizens to provide for their own use modern military-style small arms.
The government today does indeed allow for the lawful possession of machine guns, albeit under the highly-contested National Firearms Act, a fact the court believes renders them ‘not unusual’.
Thus, even today, it is perfectly legal for a person who has not been divested of his firearm rights under some other provision of law to acquire and possess a machinegun, so long as it was lawfully possessed by someone before the relevant date in 1986, and so long as he complies with the National Firearms Act’s requirements to obtain and possess the weapon. In that sense, machineguns are not unusual.
Judge Broomes ends with a powerful summary that should mollify courts that have been casting aside Supreme Court precedent on this issue:
To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion.
This court decision is likely the first of its kind, and could pave the way for a brand-new flavor of litigation as gun rights groups capitalize on the significance of the ruling and run with it in related litigation. It could also be overturned by another court that digs up archaic analogues that ‘satisfies the state’s burden’ as required in Bruen.
We will continue to follow this story.
