A federal judge ruled in favor of a Kansas man Friday who possessed a machine gun, dismissing the defendant’s charges and deeming them unconstitutional.
Prosecutors charged the defendant, Tamori Morgan, with two counts of illegally possessing a machine gun, according to court documents. The law – 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) – says, “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.”
Judge John Broomes, a Trump-appointee, ruled the ban unconstitutional.
A machine gun possession charge was dismissed by a district court in Kansas yesterday on Second Amendment grounds.
The court found that machine guns are clearly bearable arms, and in this case at least, the government failed to show a historical tradition to justify their ban. pic.twitter.com/tCou5USFmE
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) August 22, 2024
Morgan’s lawyer declined to comment.
Prosecutors charged Morgan with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun along with a “Glock switch”– a device that enables a Glock to fire like an automatic weapon – according to court documents.
Broomes said it was the government’s burden to prove there was a historical analogue to support the charges against Morgan.
The Supreme Court previously ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that restrictions were constitutional if U.S. history had a tradition of said regulation.
New York requires individuals to show a “special need” to receive an unrestricted concealed carry license. The Supreme Court ruled that publicly carrying a firearm for self-defense purposes has a longstanding historical tradition in America.
Congress attempted to regulate machine guns with the National Firearms Act in 1934 and prohibited the possession of them in 1986. Prosecutors argued Tamori’s weapons were not covered under the Second Amendment.
Broomes sharply disagreed, stating they are protected “within the original meaning of the amendment.” He said the government failed to justify the law’s application in this case.
All federal gun laws (and under the Leftist attempts to make all state laws agree with federal, state laws) should be considered unconstitutional. It is a fundamental right, and interestingly enough, 18 USC 922 has been hit TWICE in different federal districts.
I’m here for it… pic.twitter.com/JFBhgHTDzW
— Kyle Seraphin (@KyleSeraphin) August 23, 2024
The Department of Justice (DOJ) can choose to appeal the ruling. The Caller reached out to a DOJ prosecutor, but he has not commented at the time of publication.
