We reported last August how a federal judge in Kansas ruled that the federal law tightly regulating the ownership and transfer of full-auto firearms, aka machine guns, is unconstitutional. Now, a federal judge in Mississippi has ruled the same, and for many of the same reasons.
On January 29, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled in the case U.S. v. Brown that the federal law effectively banning the sale and possession of newly produced or unregistered machine guns was unconstitutional, at least for the defendant in the criminal case.
The case revolves around Justin Bryce Brown, a Mississippi man. Brown, who had no prior record, was arrested and charged with ownership of a machine gun in violation of federal law.
In his ruling, Judge Reeves said the government didn’t meet its obligation to prove that machine guns are both “dangerous” and “unusual.”
“Bruen nevertheless tells us that there is an American ‘historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” he wrote. “That is the law to be followed. The ultimate problem for the government, then, is this: although machine guns are ‘dangerous,’ it does not explain how machine guns are unusual.”
Comparing machine guns to semi-automatic firearms, Judge Reeves still concluded that the government had not proven what it must to uphold the law.
“Machine guns are even more dangerous,” Judge Reeves wrote. “There’s no dispute about that. But … dangerousness is not the end of the matter, because firearms can be dangerous and constitutionally protected. Instead, the government has the burden to prove that the firearm to be restricted is both dangerous and unusual.”
Ultimately, Judge Reeves ruled that the case against Brown must be dismissed.
“The controlling standard of the moment requires this Court to ‘determine the contours of acceptable prosecutions through the resolution of continual as-applied challenges,’ based on the evidence and arguments before it. Under that standard, Mr. Brown’s as-applied challenge is sustained. His motion is granted and the case dismissed.”
In the Kansas case mentioned at the beginning of this story, U.S. District Judge John Broomes in the case U.S. v Morgan explained how the Bruen decision played an important role in his consideration of that case.
“Defendant argues that the government cannot meet its burden to show that [the statute] is consistent with this nation’s history of firearm regulation,” Judge Broomes’ ruling stated. “To meet its burden, the government advances only two potential historical analogs. First, the government points to English common law, which it asserts prohibited riding or going armed with dangerous or usual weapons. Second, the government cites one case from the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1824 that recognized an offense to arm oneself ‘with dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people.’ But both examples are disanalogous to what Defendant is charged with here—simple possession of a machine gun.”
Unfortunately for America’s lawful gun owners, since the Mississippi case was a criminal one, the ruling applies only to the defendant. It’s likely that eventually, the Supreme Court will have to determine the legality of machine gun ownership, given how this case aligned with the Bruen standards.
Well I guess that is one potential template to review and adapt.
RE: “Bruen nevertheless tells us that there is an American ‘historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” he wrote.”
I won’t sugarcoat the courthouse poop when the so called Historical Tradition is prohibiting weapons for Blacks, Indians, Catholics and others by stooping to label weapons as dangerous and unusual.
Can’t get more dangerous than a spark and a Powder Horn yet the historical bigoted ratbassturds never said a word about prohibiting bomb making Black Powder for their pals.
The fact that History Clearly Confirms Gun Control is Rooted in Racism and Genocide makes it an Insane Agenda that is waaaaay past being buried.
No thank you
Again, the lady is not wrong.
I’ll be writing my letters maybe this weekend, accusing Congressional and prior Executive branches of allowing racism to flourish. And then I’ll pointedly ask them what they plan to do about it.
Don’t worry, I’ll be on my best behavior. Join me in my letter-writing?
Again don’t care she offers nothing of value to the conversation.
2A MACHINE GUN TRAP: DO NOT TAKE THE ANTI-GUNNER BAIT!
A federal district court judge held machine guns are protected arms under 2A but this is a trap set by anti-gunners. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCNBzsRxZ8E
Then where does US V Miller fall into this?
More lawyer employment act. The argument he puts forward is that govt can strangle any new weapon from becoming “in common use”, by banning it, thus making the new weapon uncommon.
Worrying over legal arguments vs. the requirement for the populace to be armed equally with govt as the basis of the Second Amendment is, a distraction.
The basis of the Second Amendment is not self-defense of the individual, but protection of the populace from tyranny. If the founders had intended to restrict weapons to “in common use”, or individual self-defense, they were entirely capable of writing such language. 2A is a forceful and “in your face” to govt that the people retain the natural, civil, and human right to thow off government that seeks to overthrow the people. All this dancing around with lawsuits is a movement to prevent the people from retaining ultimate power over govt.
Isn’t it interesting that the concept “no right is unlimited” protects govt, but not the people?
Worrying over legal arguments vs. the requirement for the populace to be armed equally with govt as the basis of the Second Amendment is, a distraction.
Yes, from the real point that if one wishes to arm oneself on par with the government, and has the resources to accomplish this, the government is in no position to prevent it.
The fact that few can afford such a thing is immaterial. The barrier should be personal resources but, under the 2A, cannot be law, regulation or other .gov edict.
“The barrier should be personal resources but, under the 2A, cannot be law, regulation or other .gov edict.”
But, the Lunchbox Lawyer tells us we should not poke the giant, if we value our right to self-defense.
I’m sure SCOTUS will get to it in 12 or 16 years after it leans 6/3 the other direction thereby ensuring we will continue to live with more milquetoast bullshit contradicting half liberties.
Saw the “wise latina” on TV a couple days ago. Looked like the useless prog bimbo was ready to keel over and croak.
That’s all well and good, but I honestly couldn’t afford to practice to the tune of 200+ rounds per minute.
“…I honestly couldn’t afford to practice to the tune of 200+ rounds per minute.”
I wish it was only 200 rounds per min, an Uzi at full song is around 1,200 per min…
That’s the cyclic rate. Bursts, man, bursts.
Just go for the new production 22lr options.
My quad minigun setup in .22LR still costs about $840/minute to run.
Overachiever and will need to see that one
It’s a joke.
But that would be the approximate cost to run such a thing at 3.4-3.5 cents per round assuming each minigun spits ~6000rpm.
Though honestly, dumping 1200 rounds of .22LR in a 3 second burst would be worth the cost of $42 for the giggles at least once.
From humor we often find some of our greatest ideas
Bursts, indeed. I would never want to go beyond the optimum 3-rd burst.
Full auto is for suppressive fire. 2- or 3-rd bursts FTW if the need is to decisively take down the Tangos.
Learn to shoot and “full auto” is of no use to a qualified grunt.
Lol no
No, it’s not useful to a qualified grunt, or no to the statement in general?
Statement in general, the move away from full auto was largely because of undisciplined draftees not qualified grunts to begin with.
I sort of suspected but wanted to clarify.
Most of what I’ve read on the subject had to do with the inability of even qualified grunts to rapidly put follow up shots on target with .308 or .30-06 with semi-automatic firearms, which defeated the purpose of the M14 which was to upgrade the M1 Garand and also try to replace the BAR at the same time.
Keep in mind, at this point they’re competing the the AK-47, which was straying towards carbine territory as a main infantry weapon rather than keeping with the prior tradition of a full-house battle rifle.
That’s a big part of why the AR-10 was designed the way it was, to mitigate recoil as compared to a “classic” rifle design. (See Forgotten Weapons 20 explanation of how/why the AR-10 was designed and how that relates to AR buffers with the link conveniently located below.)
One does have to wonder about the military statistics back then though when you consider that because of the way a WWII squad was built they gave the least controllable gun (BAR) to the smallest guy. I have no idea if this was part of the stats on caliber controllability since I’ve never seen the actual dataset that drove the claim.
Regardless, agreed, FA has uses.
h-t-t-p-s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9nwFgtEdUc
I’ve argued this rather strenuously with the 0331’s.
They don’t agree and they’ve got some hardware to back their position that I’d rather not test if we’re being entirely honest.
All firearms are dangerous; the standard needs to be clarified that “dangerous” is something inherent to the object itself, not simply that it can be used to harm/kill another person. This would something similar to the standard in the PLCAA which is similar to a products liability standard, that the firearm is not fit for its intended purpose.
First, machine guns need to be deregulated.
Second, why has no one pointed out that possessing a machine gun is little more than a tax violation? That $200 is just a tax, not a license.
Rip off $200 from any retail establishment and it’s a fine or community service.
Rip off $200 from the government and it’s 10 years in prison.
Kinda like vandalizing or setting fire to private or municipal property is ignored but walking behind the velvet rope of a federal building is insurrection getting you 30 years.
The feds own you and all these humiliation rituals are in place so you won’t forget.
This.
The NFA violation carries a max of five years which you can probably plead down. The tax evasion will get you 10 years per violation and you’re not pleading that down much, if at all. You’ll likely do 8 of 10 years, minimum, for each charge you’re convicted of.
The tax code is the teeth of the NFA and they’re not going to put you on the “Fresh Start Initiative” to pay them back.
“First, machine guns need to be deregulated.”
While I agree in principal, the reality is that one crazed Leftist-Fascist Scum ™ that hasn’t yet been convicted of a felony goes in a mall at Christmas and slaughters 500 shoppers will result in them being even more heavily regulated than they are presently…
Like from the last however many school shootings? They really can’t regulate them further without banning them and we are slowly starting to learn to say “so what?” to retards/crazies/commies doing what they were inclined to do anyway and attack both the criminal and enabling media that supports and uses them. Liberty is dangerous and it’s last time we stop pretending otherwise.
“…dangerous and unusual…” I’ve read the Founding Documents many times. That phrase doesn’t come up. Especially in the 2nd.
When it was written, the Founders knew what was in the past, knew what they currently had, and did not know what the future held in regards to the 2nd. Hence the term “arms”. An axe, a mace, a stick, musket, revolver, howitzer, Abrams tank, and everything in between are ALL arms. The 2nd is very easy to understand as long as you do not add words to it.
“dangerous and unusual” were words not yet invented for the founding father’s to use?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Simple to
UNDERSTAND
FOR
ONE PEOPLE
Hard to UNDERSTAND
BY
DONKEY/RINOS
AKA
DUMBASS’S
45-47
VOTED IN TO POTUS
TO REMIND
THESE FOOLS
WE THE PEOPLE ARE VERY PATIENT
BUT AS THERE IS A LIMIT TO ONE’S HOLDING OUR BREATH
THERE IS A LIMIT ON
OUR NATURAL RIGHTS
TAKEN BY FAKE LAWS
FEDCOATS NO DIFFERENT
THEN RED COAT TAX COLLECTORS
Many today see and hear that FEDCOATS /donkeyrino have stolen
HAVE STOLEN GOD BAR
TO PASS AROUND AMONG THEMSELFS
FORT KNOX better be on
DOG-E LIST NEXT
PRAY AN SPRAY VERSE
ONE SHOT ONE KILL
CRITICAL MASS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED FOR MANY
AMERICANS
ENOUGH HAS BEEN LEARNED
DONKEYRINOS
SWINGING FROM THE ROPE AT HIGH NOON
FOR THEIR
TREASON
As much as I would love to see the NFA repealed and its entirety, I think the more realistic approach that we may see at some particular point is the deregulation of certain items within the NFA and repeal of the ban on newly manufactured machine guns, this would bring the price down and make them available to the masses, but still within the NFA.
Realistic and achievable short to mid term goals. You may not get many positive responses but I agree with the overall assessment. And realistically would probably need to start there and normalize the idea much as common ownership of firearms is getting more normalized over the last decade or so.
I have a significant number of stamps and it pains me that I have to pay a $200 tax to exercise this freedom, but I think the NFA will go the way of constitutional carry eventually, remove suppressers , SBR, SBS, AOW, etc., etc.
Many any other taxes paid to gov could be deducted on your 1099. I wonder if deducting with the appropriate 1099 has been successful (classify as a business expense)?
That’s an interesting question.
Bites at the apple are how they took your freedoms.
Bites at the apple are the only way you will regain them.
To say otherwise is the worst form of lying because it requires deceiving yourself as to what is and is not possible without first having circumstances you don’t want and likely will not survive.
Everybody wants to be hard till it’s time to do hard shit.
Not quite.
Consider our best known resident troll. He wants to do smart shit until it’s time to do anything approaching midwit shit. Then he gets tired and needs a nap.
Lol ok ok everyone wants to be revolutionary till it’s time for revolution.
Accepted.
Why do you need a machine gun?
Because the world is full of machines and someone has to stop them before they take over.
“Because the world is full of machines and someone has to stop them before they take over.”
Finally !
Someone with clarity of thought.
I probably wouldn’t buy a machine gun. I enjoy shooting full auto a couple times a year but am content to use a range gun for the thrill. I am much more interested in having suppressors untaxed and readily available. It’s so much easier on one’s hearing. Really foolish that they were ever restricted.
Me too.
I’d like to see the NFA repealed entirely.
While suppressors and SBRs are much more useful to me personally, I don’t begrudge the MG autists their proclivity. If they got their way SMGs would be worth the pricetag.
“I don’t begrudge the MG autists their proclivity.”
Full-auto light might be a good start.
AKA, make 3-round burst legal…
“Machine guns are even more dangerous,” Judge Reeves wrote. “There’s no dispute about that.”
And the “Gun community” agrees with this judge. Yes machine guns are even more dangerous than regular guns. Which is why the “gun community” has supported the government’s ban on machine gun ownership.
I don’t see the “gun community” supporting responsible machine gun ownership. I only see the “gun community” attacking machine gun ownership. Except for the rich people who already have them.
The problem is the “gun community” has never supported the second amendment. the “gun community” believes the second amendment was written so they could go hunting.
A rifle for sporting purposes???
Where is that written in the 2A?
Unfortunately many in the “gun community” have adopted the language of the slave master.
Hi Chris, I’m in the gun community and I support machine gun ownership for everyone. Boo hoo for all the old guys who have six figures tied up in their pre-86 transferable MGs that are only valuable because the government limited supply. Full auto should be available just like any other gun. If an arm isn’t dangerous it’s not of much use.
Human ingenuity and technology have made machine gun ownership extremely inexpensive. A glock switch costs about as much of as a six pack of beer. You don’t have to pay thousands of dollars for a brand new machine gun, in the 21st century, if you want one.
Apparently a wire coat hanger and some pliers work wonders with AR’s as well. I imagine as some demographics age out there will be far less reluctance towards gatekeeping especially as pistol and AR ownership becomes the overwhelming average.
I’m a big fan of weapon mounted bayonets. But the “gun community” hates them. Just like they hate machine guns.
Never forget house speaker Nancy Pelosi, third in line to the presidency, ordered crewserved weapons to be used against protesters. She didn’t like.
Lol you can just say fudds
Bayonets are cool. I have one on my 590A1 and everyone I show it to loves it. The gun community loves bayonets even if they are of limited use.