Judge Declares Federal Ban on Machine Gun Possession May Violate Constitutional Rights
PUBLISHED : 24 Aug 2024 at 14:56
A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas resident for possessing a machine gun, ruling that the prosecution did not adequately demonstrate the constitutionality of the federal ban on such firearms.
This pivotal decision from US District Judge John Broomes in Wichita represents a significant legal development, being possibly the first instance where a court has deemed the machine gun ban unconstitutional. This ruling follows the conservative-majority Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2022 that broadened gun rights.
In the 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, established a new criterion for evaluating firearms regulations, asserting that any restrictions must align with the nation’s historical approach to firearm regulation.
The recent Supreme Court clarification reaffirmed that a modern restriction only needs a “historical analogue” to be legitimate, rather than a direct “historical twin”.
In Morgan’s case, Judge Broomes, appointed by President Trump, indicated that prosecutors failed to present a historical analogue to uphold the machine gun ban during his trial.
The US Department of Justice has the option to appeal this landmark ruling, which has been criticized by gun safety advocates as being “extreme and reckless.”
Morgan faced indictment last year on charges pertaining to the illegal possession of a machine gun and a device known as a “Glock switch” that modifies guns.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first legislative attempt to regulate machine guns, implemented in response to their use in criminal activities during the Prohibition Era, and a complete prohibition on ownership was instituted in 1986.
While the prosecution argued that Morgan’s weapons did not fall under the Second Amendment protections, Judge Broomes countered by stating, “the machine gun and Glock switch are bearable arms within the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
Although prosecutors referenced laws from the 1700s and 1800s that prohibited “dangerous or unusual weapons”, the judge clarified that these historical laws were aimed at preventing public terror rather than mere possession.
