Federal Machine Gun Ban Declared Unconstitutional: A Landmark Ruling
A significant legal decision has emerged from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in the case of United States v. Tamori Morgan. This ruling challenges the federal prohibition on machine guns under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), declaring it unconstitutional. This decision marks a pivotal moment in Second Amendment jurisprudence and could have wide-reaching implications.
Background
The case revolves around a defendant charged with possessing two automatic weapons—a rifle with a full-auto setting and a Glock modified with a switch for automatic fire. Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the court had to determine:
- Whether the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the conduct in question.
- If protected, whether the regulation is consistent with historical firearms laws.
Key Rulings
- Plain Text Application: The court ruled that machine guns qualify as “bearable arms” and are thus protected under the Second Amendment.
- Historical Analogues: The government failed to provide compelling historical evidence justifying a ban on mere possession of machine guns. The historical statutes cited were found irrelevant or disanalogous, focusing on how firearms were carried rather than outright possession.
The court emphasized that over 740,000 lawfully registered machine guns exist in the U.S., demonstrating they are not “unusual” under the Second Amendment’s common-use test.
Implications
While this ruling is groundbreaking, it is not the final word on the matter. The government is expected to appeal, and higher courts will likely weigh in. This decision also underscores the need for historical precedent in regulating firearms, potentially reshaping the legal landscape for future gun control measures.
What’s Next?
This case is far from over, with appeals imminent. For gun owners and advocates, it serves as a reminder to stay informed about evolving firearms laws and their implications.