Heartland Judge Tosses Machine Gun Possession Case, Questions If Ban Is Even Valid Under Second Amendment
A federal judge in Kansas, U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes, has dismissed a case against Tamori Morgan concerning possession of a machine gun and a conversion device that allows semi-automatic firearms to fire like machine guns. Judge Broomes raised questions about the constitutionality of machine gun bans under the Second Amendment, suggesting that they may violate the right to bear arms. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it could significantly affect regulations surrounding machine guns and homemade automatic weapons, which have been linked to rising gun violence.
The ruling draws from a recent Supreme Court decision that has expanded gun rights, indicating that the government must demonstrate that firearm regulations are consistent with historical precedents. Legal experts express skepticism about the permanence of this ruling, as current Supreme Court precedents support the regulation of machine guns. The case highlights ongoing debates over Second Amendment interpretations, especially in light of increasing firearm-related incidents nationwide.
A federal judge in Kansas has tossed out a machine gun possession charge and questioned if bans on the weapons violate the Second Amendment.
If upheld on appeal, the ruling by U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Wichita could have a sweeping impact on the regulation of machine guns, including homemade automatic weapons that many police and prosecutors blame for fueling gun violence.
Broomes, an appointee of President Donald Trump, on Wednesday dismissed two machine gun possession counts against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted last year. Morgan was accused of possessing a model AM-15 .300-caliber machine gun and a machine gun conversion device known as a “Glock switch” that can make a semi-automatic weapon fire like a machine gun.
“The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are ‘bearable arms’ within the original meaning of the amendment,” Broomes wrote. He added that the government “has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical firearm regulation tradition.”
As of Friday, no appeal had been filed. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Wichita declined comment.
Federal prosecutors in the case said in earlier court filings that the “Supreme Court has made clear that regulations of machine guns fall outside the Second Amendment.”
A June 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was seen as a major expansion of gun rights. The ruling said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
Jacob Charles, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University who tracks Second Amendment cases, said the Kansas ruling is direct fallout from the Bruen decision.
“It gives lower court judges the ability to pick and choose the historical record in a way that they think the Second Amendment should be read,” Charles said.
Charles expects Broomes’ ruling to be overturned, citing Supreme Court precedent allowing for regulation of machine guns.
Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center and an associate law professor of Southern Methodist University, agreed.
“As far as I know, this is the first time in American history that a machine gun ban has been found unconstitutional in its application,” Ruben said.
Communities across the U.S. have dealt with a surge of shootings carried out with weapons converted to fully automatic in recent years. These weapons are typically converted using small pieces of metal made with a 3D printer or ordered online.
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Our Republic was founded on the principal that, unlike other governments, our rights flowed directly from God. Prior to the ratification of our Constitution, rights were considered a “gift” from government who could, at a whim, give them or take them away.
Under the concept of the 5000 Year Leap, for the first time the sequence of the flow of rights no longer was considered God -> King -> People but God -> People -> Government.
All this to say that under our Constitution, the People determine what rights are or are not delegated to the government and all others are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
For any politician or Judge or Justice to say that “No right is absolute” is taking on the mantle of one who believes that they are smarter than God . I find that as walking very close to the edge of the Lake of Eternal Fire for that blasphemy.