Small submachineguns

A federal judge in Wichita, Kansas, has tossed the case against a Kansas man who was facing charges of illegally possessing a machine gun.

In his decision in the case U.S. v Morgan, U.S. District Judge John Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, ruled that the federal law tightly regulating the ownership and transfer of full-auto firearms is unconstitutional under the 2022 Bruen decision. The ruling marked the first time the machine gun restrictions have been found unconstitutional.

Judge Broomes, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the ruling that the government’s inability to cite historic bans as required by the second Bruen standard was important in determining the constitutionality of the law.

“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.”

The key to the case, according to Judge Broomes, was the laws cited by the government dealt with how arms were carried or used, not their simple ownership.

“In contrast with the aforementioned historical examples, § 922 says nothing about the manner in which machine guns are carried or displayed,” the ruling stated. Instead, [it] criminalizes the mere possession of such weapons without regard to how the possessor uses them. 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 … as one who takes the same weapon out on the public streets and displays it in an aggressive manner. The statute requires no more than possession, and, more importantly in an as-applied challenge, the indictment in this case alleges nothing more.”

In the end, Judge Broomes said the government’s poor case required him to rule for a dismissal on Second Amendment grounds.

“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,” the ruling stated. “Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

62 COMMENTS

    • “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…”
      Political economist and politician Tench Coxe nailed it in his letter to Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

  2. About time. Every AK and AR that I own will get un neutered once this worms it’s way through the courts.

  3. You aren’t anymore dead if you are shot 29-49 times more after being killed by the first shot. Yes, your chance of survival goes down quickly with each additional shot, but that’s also true if better projectiles are used or better training by the shooter comes into play. Of course, gun grabbers would like to outlaw those things too, but it ain’t happening.
    With glock switches all over Chiraq and KC, the shot VS killed ratios seem to indicate full auto doesn’t make the bangs more lethal overall.

    • You need to look at who is pulling the trigger on those Glock switches in Chiraq and KC. That demographic is not well known for accuracy, even when pulling the trigger for each shot.

      • I completely agree. We need to be honest for a change. That certain demographic, also more accurately called black teenagers, are the primary users of machine guns in 21st century America today.

        That is a fact. More black teenagers are using machine guns than any current Hollywood production company.

    • “With glock switches all over Chiraq and KC, the shot VS killed ratios seem to indicate full auto doesn’t make the bangs more lethal overall.”

      You don’t understand sir, these yutes are so practiced in their art that the bullets are just traveling through the original wound cavity therefore not causing anymore damage at least to the intended victim. The mom and her baby behind the intended victim are another story.

  5. I contend the Founders intended citizens to have full auto, SBS, SBR, silencers, AOW, et el. If a firearm is not dangerous, it is perfectly worthless. NFA arms would be in far more common use today had not the government interfered with citizens’ access to them. Penning the Second Amendment, the Founders expected citizens to show up to defend the “…security of a free state…” with current state of the art military capable keep’n’bearable arms….not rubber band guns, SuperSoakers.

  6. That’s because the National Firearms Act violates the Constitution.
    Unfortunately the decision will be reversed on appeal because gun law is based on emotion, Tommy Guns, the Mob and the St. Valentines Day Massacre.

    • Gun control is based on a very rational fear of the socialists being afraid that their subjects may rise and interfere with their power grab.

  7. I expect that the 10th will reverse and on appeal to SCOTUS they will refuse. That’s probably a bridge too far for Gorsuch who is the judge for that district. Alito or Thomas might accept it but who knows. This really is breaking new ground. I sincerely hope that it is ultimately upheld. We’ll see.

    • 4th circuit just upheld the Maryland ban on most semi-auto rifles, and SCOTUS, and SCOTUS didn’t take a similar case out of Illinois, so I’m guessing you are correct about the chances of this ruling surviving appeal.

      • SCOTUS didn’t take cases out of Illinois mostly because they were not yet ready for SCOTUS as SCOTUS wants fully developed cases in the lower courts. SCOTUS has said they want such cases, and one out of Illinois just became developed enough for SCOTUS to take so, basically, they are waiting for it.

    • IF SCOTUS thought machine guns should be legal, they had the opportunity to rule so during the bump-stock decision. The majority’s choice to distinguish bump stocks from machine guns as defined under the NFA strongly suggests that they find the NFA still valid law.

      • The court was correct. A bumpstock is not a machine gun. The government tried to say that it was. I’m very happy the court made that distinction.

        I own a bumpstock. I don’t own a very expensive machine gun.

        As far as the NFA goes. The “gun community” likes the NFA. Yes that right I said it.

        Now show me were the gun community supports glock switches?

        Or does it have to do with a certain demographic, that is the primary users of machine pistols, in 21st century America?

        • Sometimes the faster certain people, not certain demographics kill themselves the better Chris. Skin Head, Asian, Black, Brown, die in a fire gangbanger. I am a part of the “Gun Community” and the NFA is Uncostitutional! PERIOD!

          • Colonel jeff cooper did say the best way to solve the violence in their inner city. Is to make sure the residents had guns, and let them solve their own problems.

            I totally support that idea. And if they all had guns and the police were ordered to stand down and do nothing. Then the problems would be solved much faster.

            But unfortunately that will not happen. Because the gun grabbers want to make sure honest people don’t have guns. And they could care less if the criminals still have theirs. And at the same time, they will order the police to stand down and do nothing.

            And that started in 2020.

  8. I’m more interested on how this would eventually affect AOW, SBR, SBS, and suppressors. It will be amusing to watch the people who spent thousands on registered select fire rifles lose their investments if the NFA is invalidated.

    • Would take a hit but could be considered collectors items particularly for the full autos that would have a static number from decades ago.

    • “It will be amusing to watch the people who spent thousands on registered select fire rifles lose their investments if the NFA is invalidated.”

      If you can afford the 20 grand-plus for a select-fire ‘toy’, you won’t care.

      Marvin and Demetrius on the south side of Chicago with the switch on their Glock will…

  9. Next thing you know, they’ll make it legal for Mister Ben dOver to molest dead horses.

    What about thermonuclear hand grenades?

  10. Meh…dudes who own real machine gats will fight this. The value of their automatic weapons will plummet if this is upheld. He!! I can’t afford to fire 30-100 boo-lits in a few seconds😀

    • Yep !!!! It’s like stealing from them.

      That being said, Rapid Fire is highly overrated and dangerous. A single squib will destroy your weapon and probably maim or kill you. After 2 or 3 mag dumps, rapid fire gets boring and wasteful, except for simpletons.

      • That why no military in the world uses machine guns!

        Right!

        I’m not personally very interested in full auto, but they are obviously useful, and not as dangerous as you suggest. The founders meant us to have them.

      • Full auto is very effective, if you know how and when to use it. And less than 2% of the american population knows that.

        And shooting computer game use, doesn’t count, as experienced in using a machine gun.

  11. In modern infantry tactics, the main use of full-auro small arms is for suppressive fire. Shooting to force enemies to keep their heads down in order to cover the movement of other units. I’d say burst and semi are used 90+ times out of 100 in direct combat. Hardly anybody’s dumb enough to wad up in a big formation to get ventilated by machine guns ala WW1 anymore.

    • While your analysis is true, inalienable rights are not subject to arguments of social utility.

      For example, you could easily (and probably successfully) argue that we cannot allow large free speech demonstrations because huge crowds prohibit a timely emergency medical response in the vicinity. And that could easily costs lives. Thus we should prohibit large free speech demonstrations.

      Of course that previous example will (or at least should) never happen. Neither should we limit effective self-defense because of claims of social utility.

      Speaking of utility, if six gangbangers drive up onto my grass and pile out with weapons in hand, you bet your @$$ I want fully automatic gunfire as an option to defend myself and my family. (That scenario is a specific example of “the enemy overrunning your command post” which is another classic need for full auto gunfire in combat.)

      • “While your analysis is true, inalienable rights are not subject to arguments of social utility.”

        It is settled science that the Second Amendment only protects firearms useful for hunting. Nobody needs an automatic weapon for hunting (or more than two bullets).

        Throughout history, government interests in taking care of people are superior to any so-called “rights”. Indeed, such superior consideration is essential to controlling the actions of evil doers. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

        Wanting to own a firearm should be a disqualifier to own a gun.

        “So let it be written, so let it be done.”

  12. And yet most of the kills by personal firearms we saw were from M249 and M240 (most of the total kills were artillery/airstrikes). Suppression is what is in the manuals but for hitting various targets at most distances beyond spitting for what was available to most grunts belt fed is what got things done. Now as to usefulness indoors plenty of pistol caliber options some of which have been in use longer than any of us have been alive.

    • Airpower may rule the battlefield. From a B-52 all the way down to a small radio controlled drone.

      But if you want to keep the Real estate, you need “dirty boot” soldiers, to keep that piece of land, you just killed the enemy to get it.

      • btw
        Guys with highly polished shoes have never kept battlefield real estate.
        But they are the ones who always give that real estate away.

        • Oh I know and fully agree with your full auto vs 3 round burst preference mentioned elsewhere. But holding ground is less relevant if you don’t want to keep the population and may be a consideration to plan for on the worst case.

  13. For 99.9 % of folks, full auto is best left for a trip to a range that would rent you use of a full auto weapon. However, the 1934 NFA was passed because of criminal mis use of full auto weapons. As for “silencers”, they were included because of the fear that hungry folks would use a silencer to hunt illegally for food. Now that modern tech can create a “Glock Switch”, and gang bangers are not sent to jail for using them, the whole intent of the 1934 NFA is void. If the 1934 NFA is only enforced against normally lawful citizens, and criminals are given a free pass, then the ruling that the 1934 NFA is “unconstitutional” is a valid ruling. P.S. – Go to a gun range and see how many folks believe the “Spray and Pray” technique is how one is supposed to shoot. How many times I fired 5 rounds from a revolver and got more hits on target than the next shooter doing a 15 round mag dump, I can no longer keep track.

    • The three round burst was created as a cost saving measure. By generals who don’t have to fight an enemy on the battlefield.

      Those of us who have actually pull the triggers. We want full auto. When we decide we need full auto. Not some person on the other side of planet earth. Watching a fire fight on a computer screen. In an air conditioned third office building.

    • It works pretty good for suppressive fire and if there are a large number of targets sitting down at a table having a nice get together and you are close enough. At least that’s what Vinny and Ilich Ramírez Sánchez said..

        • “Burst fire on the A-10 is I believe 125 rounds. Not 3.”

          Technical note: A-10 can carry 1180 rounds of 30mm. F-35 (A-10 vaunted replacement) can carry 181 rounds of 25mm (have seen estimates of 220rds).

          • I didn’t know the F35 was a replacement for the A-10???

            That is a very stupid idea. I remember the fights over the A-10. At one time the US Army was spending the money to fund it. The Air Force has always hated the ground support mission.

            It would be much better for Army and Marine units, to go back to having a C47 with mini guns. Like in Vietnam.
            “Puff the magic dragon.”

            And the many other Army fix wing aircraft that conducted close air support.

            But the Pentagon forced the Army to sign an agreement. That banned Army fixed wing aircraft from carrying ordnance.

            The Army even tried to completely take over the A-10 program. But the Air Force refused to let it go. And they have tried to kill the A-10. Many times of the programs existence.

            • Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 because it isn’t a “fighter” capable of a dogfight. Oddly, AF is all about weaponized drones…that don’t provide cockpits for dogfighters, either.

              Yes, A-10 is hopeless in a zone that the AF doesn’t have complete superiority over, that is true. But, as you noted, “troops-in-contact” love the A-10.

  15. The Obama/Biden administration supplied thousands of select fire weapons, to hundreds civilian police departments all over the United States.

    The liberals say they hate the police. I have never believed that. Especially since they supplied military machine guns to thousands of civilian cops.

    “A [machine gun] should have a place of honor inside every american home.”

    And since the obama administration supplied tanks to these police departments as well, civilians should have rocket launchers.

    • The Biden/Harris administration supplied guns and much more to the Taliban with taxpayer dollars. The VERY least they should be doing is let me buy the same with my own hard earned and hard taxed dollars.

  17. This makes me happy. Having said that, this guy manufactured 2 fully automatic weapons, without Bruen (whether properly or improperly applied) the feds would have had this guy dead to rights. I read the material and the governments man was clearly a lunatic and the defendants man a genius.

Comments are closed.