Buckeye Reporter

A district court in Kansas has ruled that the federal law prohibiting the possession of "machineguns" failed the test set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

Judge John Broomes stated: “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 case, United States v. Morgan, No. 23-10047-JWB (D. Kan. Aug. 21, 2024), involves Tamori Morgan, who was charged with two counts of possessing a “machinegun” in violation of federal law.

The law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), makes it a crime to possess a “machinegun,” defined as any weapon capable of automatically firing more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.

Morgan moved to dismiss the charges based on Bruen, claiming that the federal prohibition was unconstitutional.

Judge Broomes noted that while aircraft-mounted guns were not bearable arms covered by the Second Amendment, other items such as tasers or BB guns could be considered under its broad definition.

On Morgan's as-applied challenge, Judge Broomes found that machineguns satisfied Bruen's first step as bearable arms but determined that historical analogs presented by the government did not justify applying this regulation under Bruen's second step.

Judge Broomes pointed out: “the government has barely tried to meet” its burden and concluded neither example provided succeeded as relevant analogs since they criminalized simple possession without context.

Despite reactions from Everytown and other gun control groups expressing dismay at this decision, Judge Broomes emphasized his obligation to apply existing Supreme Court precedent from Bruen rather than make policy decisions.

The ruling dismissed charges against Morgan without invalidating federal machinegun laws for others outside limited legal circumstances.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign promises for extreme gun control measures contrast with this ruling’s reinforcement of constitutional rights limitations on policy choices articulated by Justice Antonin Scalia in Heller.