Judge Dismisses Kansas Woman’s Machine Gun Charges, Citing Supreme Court Ruling.

In a recent ruling, a U.S. District Judge has dismissed federal charges against Tamori Morgan, a Kansas resident accused of illegal machine gun possession. The decision, handed down by Judge John Broomes on August 21, is rooted in a significant U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has reshaped the legal landscape for firearm regulations.

The case centers on a machine gun Morgan possessed, an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300 caliber, along with a conversion device. Federal prosecutors argued that Morgan's possession violated laws prohibiting machine guns. However, Morgan's defense contended that these laws unconstitutionally infringed on her Second Amendment rights, emphasizing that the historical basis for such regulations is sparse.

Judge Broomes' ruling draws on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. This landmark case established a new framework for evaluating firearm regulations, requiring that any restriction must be consistent with the nation's historical traditions of firearm regulation.

According to the ruling, the government has not met the burden set by Bruen and another key case, United States v. Rahimi. In these cases, the Court clarified that laws restricting firearms must be historically grounded. Judge Broomes criticized the government for its insufficient effort to link the current machine gun ban to historical precedents, stating, “The government has barely tried to meet that burden.”

The Bruen decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, mandates that when a firearm regulation is challenged, officials must demonstrate its alignment with historical traditions of gun control. Similarly, the Rahimi ruling, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that new laws must be "relevantly similar" to traditional laws permitted by the Second Amendment.

Morgan’s attorney argued that the prohibition of machine guns, which was only enacted in 1968, lacks a solid historical foundation. The defense pointed out that the 1986 law, which banned machine guns but allowed those legally possessed before the ban, included a grandfather clause that made some machine guns legally available.

The judge’s decision highlights that, while the ruling applies specifically to Morgan, it places the onus on the government to prove that machine gun restrictions are historically justified. “Importantly, this decision says little about what the government might prove in some future case,” Broomes noted, indicating that the ruling does not preclude future attempts to establish a historical basis for such laws.

This decision has broader implications for firearm regulation, signaling a shift in how courts may assess the constitutionality of gun control laws in light of recent Supreme Court rulings. For now, Morgan's case underscores the evolving legal challenges surrounding Second Amendment rights and firearm regulations.

The information was sourced from Epoch Times. Be warned reader as they have annoying paywalls. The paywall is they try to get you to pay 1 dollar a week. We won't be doing that here. Information was also sourced from the original court ruling.