US judge tosses machine gun possession case, calls ban unconstitutional
Adds details about exception to federal ban in paragraph 8
By Nate Raymond
Aug 23 (Reuters) -A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita on Wednesday appeared to mark the first time a court has held that banning machine guns is unconstitutional after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 issued a landmark ruling that expanded gun rights.
In that ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The Supreme Court clarified that standard in June as it upheld a ban on people subject to domestic violence restraining orders having guns, saying a modern firearms restriction needs only a "historical analogue," not a "historical twin," to be valid.
Broomes, an appointee of Republican then-President Donald Trump, said prosecutors in Tamori Morgan's case failed to identify such a historical analogue to support charging him with violating the machine gun ban.
The U.S. Department of Justice can appeal the decision, which the gun safety group Everytown Law in a statement called "extreme and reckless." Prosecutors did not respond to a request for comment. Morgan's lawyer declined to comment.
Morgan was indicted last year on charges that he illegally possessed a machine gun and a machine gun conversion device known as a "Glock switch."
Congress first moved to limit machine guns through the National Firearms Act in 1934, which was enacted after the weapons became commonly used by criminals during the Prohibition Era. In 1986, it went further and barred possessing machine guns that were not lawfully possessed prior to that year.
Prosecutors said the weapons at issue in Morgan's case did not fall within the protections of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
But Broomes disagreed, saying the "the machinegun and Glock switch are bearable arms within the plain text of the Second Amendment."
While prosecutors pointed to laws from the 1700s and 1800s barring the use of "dangerous or unusual weapons," Broomes said those historical examples focused on their use to terrorize the public, not simply possessing them in the first place.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Jonathan Oatis
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
