From https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article291318960.html

Quote:

---

A U.S. District Court judge in Kansas on Wednesday dismissed machine gun possession charges against a defendant, finding that prosecutors hadn't proven the weapons can be banned under the Second Amendment.

...

Judge John W. Broomes, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dismissed two machine gun possession counts against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted by a federal grand jury in April 2023.

Broomes wrote that prosecutors hadn't met their burden under two landmark U.S. Supreme Court gun rights cases called Bruen and Rahimi that require firearms restrictions to have historical analogs at the time of the nation's founding.

---

See https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35 for the written decision.

There's a video on it, too, at:

Full auto isn't "banned".

Highly regulated, but not illegal...

From the decision:

Quote:

---

The court interprets that as indicating that the Supreme Court means what it says: the constitutionality of laws regulating the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment must be evaluated under the Bruen framework.

---

This would seem to cover banning and the restrictions.

But note from the decision:

Quote:

---

Importantly, this decision says little about what the government might prove in some future case. Rather, under Bruen's framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, it is the government's burden to identify a historical analog to the restrictions challenged in this case. This the government has failed to do. The court expresses no opinion as to whether the government could, in some other case, meet its burden to show a historically analogous restriction that would justify 922(o).

---

There's another article at https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/courts/2024/08/22/kansas-judge-dismisses-machine-gun-case-after-scotus-gun-rights-ruling/74903536007/ about the ruling that provides more details about the case.

From the article;

Quote:

---

Prosecutors alleged that Morgan on Oct. 17, 2022, possessed "an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 caliber machinegun" as well as "a machinegun conversion device," also known as a so-called Glock switch. They filed for the forfeiture of the AM-15, a Glock 33, a conversion device and ammunition.

...

The charges were under 18 U.S.C. 922(o), the federal code prohibiting possession of a machine gun except by the government and for individuals who, under a grandfather clause, have a machine gun that was lawfully possessed prior to the law going into effect in 1986.

...

"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," Broomes wrote, referring to U.S. Supreme Court gun rights decisions in 2022 and 2024. "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."

Broomes wrote that he interpreted the Supreme Court's July decision in a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals gun rights case "as indicating that the Supreme Court means what it says: the constitutionality of laws regulating the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment must be evaluated under the Bruen framework."

The 6-3 opinion in the 2022 Bruen decision ruled that gun regulations must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" to survive court challenges. Courts should look to "historical analogue."

---

This all comes down to 1934 and the NFA. NFA was passed in large part due to the Thompson and prohibition.

Is it historical enough to pass Bruen?

Remember, NFA didn't "ban" full auto. It only imposed a tax and some heavy regs on full auto.

Do those regs violate 2A? Yes, they do, But until I can own a MA Duce w/o any regs and paying a tax for the privilege, maybe it makes sense.

Sounds like this Judge is mostly stirring the pot just like a MI judge recently did.

It is an election year after all...

Full auto on a Glock 33? Dude must be rich!

Closing the transferable registry was a big controversy in 1986.

The vote to pass Hughes' amendment 777 to FOPA was a voice vote, not a recorded vote - with no discussion.

Charlie Rangel was chair, he rammed them through in the last 240 seconds - the same Charlie Rangel later convicted of 11 counts of ethics violation.

Watch the C-Span video. It will make you angry.

I'd be real happy to see Hughes go down. The whole NFA is unconstitutional, but at least you can get those items for a somewhat reasonable price. The Hughes amendment has created a supply shortage of MGs that assures only the wealthy can afford to purchase them. Hughes goes away then MGs would be affordable and available to those who can pass the extra scrutiny of the NFA background check. I'd like it to all go away, but getting rid of Hughes would be a big step in the right direction.

The 1934 NFA is as unconstitutional as the poll tax. And the 1986 Hughes amendment is the only federal law I've seen come into existence against the majority vote of the legislature.

Taken together, it's 90 years of federal boot on the throat of American manufacturing, innovation, and freedom that never should have been. These 'laws' can't share the same coffin soon enough.

On top of that, I'd bet that in part because of these unconstitutional laws, more convicted felons currently own machine guns than do law abiding citizens by an order of magnitude or more.

Good judge, for forcing the issue. The closing the registry policy has no basis in historical traditional and should be heard by SCOTUS. If .gov wants to charge $200 and examine background for months and months (debatably infringey) well OK, at least there is a path forward. But shutting off the supply arbitrarily 40 yrs ago is unequivocal infringement in retrospect.

JSKolache said:

---

Good judge, for forcing the issue. The closing the registry policy has no basis in historical traditional and should be heard by SCOTUS. If .gov wants to charge $200 and examine background for months and months (debatably infringey) well OK, at least there is a path forward. But shutting off the supply arbitrarily 40 yrs ago is unequivocal infringement in retrospect.

---

Nevermind that it passed on a contested, party line, voice vote over perfectly valid objections to require a record vote.

JSKolache said:

---

Good judge, for forcing the issue. The closing the registry policy has no basis in historical traditional and should be heard by SCOTUS. If .gov wants to charge $200 and examine background for months and months (debatably infringey) well OK, at least there is a path forward. But shutting off the supply arbitrarily 40 yrs ago is unequivocal infringement in retrospect.

---

There is nothing debatable about it, it is infringement

ESPECIALLY when you consider that the NFA background check is exactly the same as any NCIC background check you go through when you buy a firearm at a dealer. There is literally no difference.

NYE in San Antonio is gonna be LIT

Gator92 said:

---

Full auto isn't "banned".

Highly regulated, but not illegal...

---

They're actually illegal under Kansas state law, where this case was heard. But for whatever reason, the defendant was charged under Federal law.

The actual charge was probably having an untaxed MG. So very similar to the untaxed SBS at issue in U.S. v. Miller.

I vaguely recall an attempted challenge to that, on the theory that the .gov can't charge you with failing to to pay a tax that they won't allow you to pay.