On Friday, a federal judge ruled in favor of Kansas resident Tamori Morgan, who was charged with possessing a machine gun. The judge dismissed the charges, declaring them unconstitutional.
Morgan faced two counts of illegal machine gun possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which makes it unlawful for anyone to transfer or possess such weapons, the Daily Caller reported.
U.S. District Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee, ruled the ban unconstitutional.
Prosecutors charged Morgan with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a “Glock switch,” a device that converts a Glock into an automatic weapon, according to court documents.
Broomes argued that it was the government’s responsibility to demonstrate a historical precedent justifying the charges against Morgan. The Supreme Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, established that gun restrictions are constitutional only if they align with a historical tradition of regulation in the U.S.
New York had mandated that individuals must demonstrate a “special need” to obtain an unrestricted concealed carry license. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense is deeply rooted in American history.
Congress sought to regulate machine guns with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and later prohibited their possession with the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Prosecutors contended that Tamori’s weapons did not fall under Second Amendment protections.
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.
It’s unclear if the Justice Department will appeal the ruling, the Caller reported, though it seems likely.
In May, meanwhile, another federal judge ruled that the Biden-Harris administration could not enforce a gun sale rule in Texas that required firearms dealers to conduct background checks on gun show buyers or other places outside of their brick-and-mortar locations.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, another Trump appointee, issued a ruling just before a new regulation was set to take effect. His order blocks the federal government from enforcing the rule against several gun-rights groups, including Gun Owners of America. However, the ruling does not apply to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, which are also parties to the lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs understandably fear that these presumptions will trigger civil or criminal penalties for conduct deemed lawful just yesterday,” Kacsmaryk wrote in his decision.
Earlier that month, twenty-six Republican attorneys general filed lawsuits in federal courts in Arkansas, Florida, and Texas to prevent the enforcement of a new rule. The plaintiffs claim that the rule infringes upon the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and argue that President Joe Biden lacks the authority to implement it.
The Associated Press added:
The new requirement is the Biden administration’s latest effort to curtail gun violence and aims to close a loophole that has allowed unlicensed dealers to sell tens of thousands of guns every year without checking that the potential buyer is not legally prohibited from having a firearm.
Kacsmaryk wrote that the rule sets presumptions about when a person intends to make a profit and whether a seller is “engaged in the business.” He said this is “highly problematic” for multiple reasons, including that it forces the firearm seller to prove innocence rather than the government to prove guilt.
“This ruling is a compelling rebuke of their tyrannical and unconstitutional actions that purposely misinterpreted federal law to ensure their preferred policy outcome,” Gun Owners of America senior vice president Erich Pratt noted in a Monday statement following the ruling.
