Landmark Ruling in Kansas
In a significant legal decision, a federal judge in Kansas has dismissed a machine gun possession charge, raising questions about the constitutionality of banning such weapons under the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes, appointed by President Donald Trump, ruled on Wednesday to dismiss two counts of machine gun possession against Tamori Morgan, challenging the government’s ability to regulate these firearms.
The Case Against Tamori Morgan
Tamori Morgan was indicted last year on charges of possessing a model AM-15 .300-caliber machine gun and a “Glock switch,” a device that converts a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic one. Federal prosecutors argued that these regulations are well-established and fall outside the protections of the Second Amendment. However, Judge Broomes disagreed, stating that the weapons in question qualify as “bearable arms” under the original meaning of the amendment.
“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 in his decision. He emphasized that it is the government’s responsibility to prove that such regulations align with the nation’s historical firearm regulation traditions.
Potential Impact on Gun Regulation
If upheld on appeal, Judge Broomes’ ruling could significantly impact the regulation of machine guns and similar automatic weapons, which law enforcement officials have increasingly blamed for contributing to gun violence across the country. The decision challenges long-standing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s position that machine guns can be regulated without infringing on Second Amendment rights.
Legal experts have pointed out that the ruling is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded gun rights and affirmed the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Jacob Charles, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University, commented that this case reflects the broader consequences of the Bruen decision, allowing lower courts to interpret the Second Amendment in ways that could challenge existing gun regulations.
Reactions and Future Implications
The ruling has sparked concern among gun control advocates and legal scholars. Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center and associate law professor at Southern Methodist University, noted that this decision marks the first time in American history that a machine gun ban has been found unconstitutional in its application. Shira Feldman, a representative from Brady United Against Gun Violence, described the ruling as “incredibly dangerous” and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s established interpretation of the Second Amendment.
As of Friday, no appeal had been filed by federal prosecutors, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Wichita declined to comment on the ruling. Legal experts expect the decision to be challenged, with the possibility that it will be overturned based on previous Supreme Court rulings that support the regulation of machine guns.
