Opinion
In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. District Court in Kansas ruled that machine guns and your GOD-given right to have one are protected under the Second Amendment.
This ruling, in the case of United States vs. Morgan, has the potential to change the landscape of firearm regulations in America. Judge John Broomes, appointed by former President Donald Trump, dismissed charges against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted for possessing machine guns. Broomes argued that machine guns fall under the category of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, echoing a fundamental belief held by many gun rights advocates.
Machine Guns are Protected” Key Takeaways from the Ruling
- Machine Guns Are Considered “Arms”: The ruling highlights that machine guns are classified as “bearable arms” under the Second Amendment. This aligns with the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which aims to stay true to the framers’ intent. The court’s acknowledgment that these firearms fit within the constitutional definition of protected arms marks a significant moment in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
- Burden of Proof on the Government: According to Judge Broomes, the government failed to meet the required burden of proof to justify the prohibition of machine guns. The ruling pointed out that existing evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” to the extent that they can be banned. The judge emphasized the need for historical analogs from the time of the nation’s founding to justify such restrictions, referencing landmark Supreme Court decisions like Bruen and Rahimi.
- The Role of “Common Use”: The argument about machine guns being in “common use” played a central role in this case. While the defense presented data showing over 760,000 machine guns are registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA), the court clarified that only those held by law-abiding citizens (around 170,000) should count towards this figure. The rest, owned by law enforcement, do not factor into the “common use” standard. This distinction could impact future legal battles over the classification of certain firearms.
What’s Next?
While this ruling is a significant victory for gun rights advocates, it’s not the final word. The decision is expected to be appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it may face challenges. Historically, courts have upheld the regulation of machine guns, classifying them as “dangerous and unusual” weapons that do not enjoy the same protections as other firearms. The appeal’s outcome will likely hinge on whether the appellate judges agree with the district court’s interpretation of historical legal standards.
Moreover, the political landscape could play a crucial role. If a pro-gun administration, such as one led by Donald Trump, comes into power, the Department of Justice might choose not to pursue the appeal, allowing the ruling to stand. On the other hand, a different administration might aggressively challenge this decision.
The Broader Impact
This ruling brings to light a broader debate over the Second Amendment and what types of arms it protects. The original intent behind the Second Amendment was to ensure citizens could bear arms for self-defense and as a check against tyranny. However, what constitutes acceptable arms has evolved over time, with technology and societal changes influencing interpretations.
For gun enthusiasts, this ruling is a reaffirmation of their rights. Many believe that law-abiding citizens should have access to all types of firearms or weapons, including machine guns, howitzers, tanks, and F-15 Eagles, for self-defense and to maintain a balance of power. Critics argue that such weapons pose a significant threat to public safety, labeling them as “weapons of war” unsuitable for civilian ownership.
Get One!
The Kansas court’s decision in United States vs. Morgan could become a pivotal case in the ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights. While the ruling supports the notion that machine guns are protected arms, the path forward remains uncertain. Appeals and political shifts could alter the landscape, but for now, this decision underscores a critical debate about the scope of constitutional protections for firearms in America. As this case progresses, gun rights advocates and opponents alike will be watching closely, understanding that the implications extend far beyond a single courtroom.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TAMORI MORGAN
over 760,000 machine guns are registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA), the court clarified that only those held by law-abiding citizens (around 170,000) should count towards this figure. The rest, owned by law enforcement, do not factor into the “common use” The truth is these 590,000 machine guns referred to as owned by law enforcement are only being held by law enforcement. They have been bought and paid for by We The People’s tax dollars. So technically the Police departments are only temporary custodians of these weapons. A change in Police leadership or city leadership could change the numbers… Read more »
the ONLY reason such firearms are “not in common use” is because they were not yet invented when the Second Article of Ammendment was written. Semiauto, yes, but full auto, not that I’ve heard about. Further,since the NFA I think back in the 1920’s declared them illegal it became very pricey and risky to own one. Thus the act itself is wha has made them “uncommon”. Remove the act and see what happens……. No quesion that had such firearms been around at the tomeof Lexongton and COncord, I believe the Brits woild have been eterminated that day. If everyone had… Read more »
Do not let the “dangerous and unusual” or “in common use” terms taint the fundamental nature of our rights. These terms invade or infringe on the very rights recognized by that constitution. Do not fall in to that trap.
HLB
According to Our American Constitution, American Citizens ARE ALLOWED to possess every “bearable” weapon OUR AMERICAN MILITARY USES!!
760,000 machineguns and the powers that be want only the 170,000 use for the calculus of determining “Common Use.” The only reason there are only 170,000 machineguns held by “other than law enforcement” is because the possession of these weapons “is” so highly regulated and cost prohibitive that machineguns are regulated out of the reach of 80% of who would be otherwise a legally acceptable qualified possessing population. Remove the regulatory barriers to the acquisition and possession of these weapons and the current definition of “Common Use” count would swell into the millions within months!!! That would be Constitutional! “Common… Read more »
I love the idea of possibly owning a new machine gun instead trying to purchase an overpriced used one. Time will tell.