A federal judge ruled in favor of a Kansas man who possessed a machine gun on Friday, dismissing his charges and finding them unconstitutional.
Prosecutors charged the defendant, Tamori Morgan, with two counts of illegal possession of a machine gun. According to In court documents Law – 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) – “It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun,” it states.
Judge John Blooms said: President Trump Appointeeruled that the ban was unconstitutional.
Yesterday, a district court in Kansas dismissed a machine gun possession charge on Second Amendment grounds.
The Court found that machine guns are clearly possessible weapons, and, at least in this case, the government could not cite historical tradition to justify a ban on machine guns. pic.twitter.com/tCou5USFmE
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) August 22, 2024
Morgan's lawyer declined to comment.
Prosecutors charged Morgan with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300-caliber machine gun and a “Glock switch.”– A device that allows a Glock to be fired like an automatic rifle – According to court documents.
Blooms said it was up to the government to prove there were historical similarities that supported the charges against Morgan.
The Supreme Court previously ruled in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that tradition of the regulations in question.
In New York state, you must demonstrate a “special need” to obtain an unrestricted concealed carry permit. The Supreme Court has ruled that openly carrying a firearm for self-defense is a long-standing tradition in America.
Parliament Regulate Congress banned machine guns in the National Firearms Act in 1934 and banned their possession in 1986. Prosecutors argued that Tamori's weapon was not covered by the Second Amendment.
Blooms strongly disagreed, saying the protections were “within the meaning of the amendment.” He said the government had failed to prove it was justified in applying the law in this case.
All federal gun laws (and attempts by the left to make all state laws consistent with federal law) should be deemed unconstitutional. It is a fundamental right, and interestingly, 18 USC 922 has already been violated twice in different federal districts.
I’m here for that… pic.twitter.com/JFBhgHTDzW
— Kyle Seraphin (@KyleSeraphin) August 23, 2024
The Department of Justice (DOJ) can appeal the ruling. The Caller reached out to DOJ prosecutors but they had not commented as of publication time.
