A federal judge dismissed criminal charges involving the machine gun, ruling that such weapons are “portable weapons” under the Second Amendment.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John W. Blooms in Wichita, Kansas, dismissed two charges against defendant Tamori Morgan for possessing a machine gun in violation of federal law. Last year, the Department of Justice indicted Morgan for possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300-caliber machine gun and a “Glock Switch” that allows a Glock Model 33 .357 SIG to fire like an automatic rifle.
Federal prosecutors in the case argued that the Supreme Court has made clear that regulation of machine guns is not covered by the Second Amendment. Associated Press Reported.
“The government, Blue En and Rahimi… In fact, the government has done little to meet the burden.”
Morgan said the federal charges he was facing were: 18 U.S.C. § 922violated his constitutional rights. Judge Blooms agreed.
“The Court found that the Second Amendment applies because the charged weapons are 'portable weapons' within the amendment's original meaning. The Court further found that the Government failed to show that the country's history of gun control justifies applying 18 USC § 922(o) to the Defendants,” Blooms said. Written.
In his decision, Judge Blooms, a President Trump appointee, explained that the “plain language” of the Second Amendment protects Morgan's actions simply by possessing a machine gun and a Glock switch, and that Section 922 directly violates that same clear language regarding firearm possession.
“If an individual purchases such a weapon and stores it in a basement gun safe, untouched for 20 years, he or she is just as guilty of violating Section 922(o) as if he or she took the same weapon onto a public street and displayed it in an aggressive manner,” the judge wrote.
Blooms also said federal prosecutors had failed to identify “historic gun control traditions” that would justify charging Morgan with following two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Blue En 2022 and Rahimi 2024.
“In summary, in this case the government has not met its obligations. Blue En and Rahimi “The key to success is to demonstrate through historical parallels that the weapons restrictions at issue in this case are consistent with the nation's history of firearms regulation. In fact, the government has made little effort to meet that responsibility,” Blooms argued.
The National Gun Rights Association praised Blooms' decision, posting on X, “This is unbelievable.”
Meanwhile, many gun control opponents were outraged. Shira Feldman of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence called Blooms' decision “deeply dangerous,” while Jacob Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University Law School, argued that the ruling gives lower courts “the power to cherry-pick the historical record in how they think the Second Amendment should be interpreted.”
Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center and an associate professor of law at Southern Methodist University, said Blooms' opinion may be “the first time in American history that a machine gun ban has been held unconstitutional.”
The Justice Department has the right to appeal the ruling, but no appeal had been filed as of Friday, The Associated Press reported. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Wichita declined AP's request for comment.
President Trump's appointees Judges Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch Blue En and Rahimi In both cases, I agreed with the majority opinion and the sentences were similarly concurring.
source: Post-Millennial
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censorship and sign up for our newsletter to receive stories like this directly to your inbox. Register here!
