HUGE Second Amendment Ruling: US v Morgan

Massive ruling out of Kansas where the court determined that a machine gun is a "bearable arm." What?
In United States v. Morgan (2024), a Kansas federal judge dismissed charges against Tamori Morgan for possessing machine guns, citing that such weapons fall under the Second Amendment as "bearable arms." The court ruled that the government failed to show that machine gun regulation aligns with historical firearm regulations. This ruling challenges federal machine gun bans and may influence future gun rights litigation.
Prepare for the Appeal!
Please SUBSCRIBE for more videos on the Second Amendment.
In United States v. Morgan (2024), U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes dismissed federal charges against Tamori Morgan for possessing machine guns, challenging the constitutionality of a federal ban on machine gun possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Morgan had been indicted for possessing a machine gun conversion device (known as a "Glock switch") and an AM-15 .300-caliber machine gun, which could convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic weapons.
The ruling, rooted in the 2022 Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, marked a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Bruen decision expanded gun rights by affirming the individual’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense and set a precedent for evaluating firearms regulations under a historical lens. Judge Broomes applied this standard, stating that the government had failed to demonstrate that the machine gun ban was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The court found that the weapons in question, being "bearable arms," fell under the protection of the Second Amendment. Broomes emphasized that the government had not provided adequate historical analogs justifying the ban on machine guns, dismissing the argument that such firearms fall outside the Second Amendment’s scope. In doing so, the court referenced historical examples, such as the 1939 case United States v. Miller, which examined whether certain types of firearms were appropriate for militia use. Judge Broomes noted that military-style arms were not only permissible but sometimes mandated for civilian possession in earlier U.S. history.
If upheld, this ruling could challenge existing regulations surrounding machine guns, including those made with conversion devices, which have been blamed for contributing to rising gun violence. Critics argue that allowing such weapons undermines public safety, citing their use in mass shootings and violent crimes across the U.S. However, supporters view the decision as a defense of individual gun rights against overly broad federal regulations. Legal experts predict that the case could be appealed and potentially overturned, given longstanding Supreme Court precedents supporting the regulation of dangerous and unusual firearms, such as machine guns.
This case represents a key moment in ongoing debates over Second Amendment rights and federal firearm regulations, with broader implications for future gun rights litigation. Appeal, undboubtedly, to come!
#secondamendment #2ndamendment #gunrights #guncontrol #usconstitution #billofrights #usvmorgan #machinegunbearablearm