Trump-appointed judge tosses machine gun charges against Kansas defendant, casts doubt on machine gun bans

A federal judge has struck down criminal charges relating to machine guns, ruling that such weapons constitute "bearable arms" in accordance with the Second Amendment.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Wichita, Kansas, dropped two counts of possessing a machine gun in defiance of federal law assessed against defendant Tamori Morgan. Last year, the DOJ indicted Morgan for possessing an Anderson Manufacturing model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun as well as a "Glock switch" which made his Glock model 33 .357 SIG fire like an automatic weapon.

Federal prosecutors involved in the case insisted that the "Supreme Court has made clear that regulations of machineguns fall outside the Second Amendment," the AP reported.

'The government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi ... . Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden.'

Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, claiming that the federal statute under which he had been charged, 18 U.S. Code § 922, violated his constitutional rights. Judge Broomes agreed.

"The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are 'bearable arms' within the original meaning of the amendment. The court further finds that the government has failed to establish that this nation’s history of gun regulation justifies the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) to Defendant," Broomes wrote.

In his decision, Broomes, a Trump appointee, explained that the "plain text" of the Second Amendment protects Morgan's conduct of simply possessing a machine gun and Glock switch and that § 922 directly violates that same plain text regarding firearm possession.

"If an individual purchases such a weapon and locks it away in a gun safe in his basement for twenty years without touching it, he is just as guilty of a violation of § 922(o) as one who takes the same weapon out on the public streets and displays it in an aggressive manner," the judge noted.

Broomes also stated that federal prosecutors had failed to identify an apt "historical firearm regulation tradition" to justify charging Morgan in accordance with two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Bruen of 2022 and Rahimi of 2024.

"To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden," Broomes insisted.

The National Association of Gun Rights cheered Broomes' decision, posting to X: "This is incredible."

Meanwhile, many gun opponents seethed. Shira Feldman of Brady United Against Gun Violence called Broomes' ruling "incredibly dangerous," and Jacob Charles, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University, insisted it gave lower courts "the ability to pick and choose the historical record in a way that they think the Second Amendment should be read."

Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center and an associate law professor of Southern Methodist University, indicated that Broomes' opinion may be "the first time in American history that a machine gun ban has been found unconstitutional in its application."

The DOJ has the right to appeal the decision, but as of Friday, no appeal has been filed, the AP reported. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Wichita declined the AP's request for comment.

Trump-appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch helped bring about the Bruen and Rahimi decisions as well, concurring with the majority in both cases.

H/T: The Post Millennial

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!