In a BIG decision that has sent shockwaves through the 2A community, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas ruled that the federal ban on machine guns, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), is unconstitutional!!!

This ruling stems from the case of United States v. Tamori Morgan, where the court found that prohibiting the possession of machine guns violates the Second Amendment.

William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, broke down the ruling with palpable excitement.

“We got a huge, and I mean a huge, ruling out of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas today,” said Kirk on Friday. “They have found 18 United States Code, Section 922, Subsection O—the prohibition against machine guns—unconstitutional. Not making it up.”

The case involved Tamori Morgan, who was charged with possessing two automatic weapons: a 300 Blackout with a full-auto setting and a Glock equipped with a “switch.”

The government argued that the 2A does not cover such firearms, citing the language in Heller that suggests machine guns are dangerous and unusual and thus could be restricted.

Kirk explained that the court took a different approach, refusing to exclude modern weapons from 2A protections.

“The court here, however—yeah, they did not fall into that trap,” he emphasized.

Kirk also pointed out the significance of the United States v. Miller case, often cited to uphold bans on so-called “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

He said:

But the court very correctly points out, in relying upon Miller, “In Miller, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the National Firearm Act’s prohibition against carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. Interestingly, over half of the opinion in Miller was devoted to explaining how in the years preceding and immediately following the enactment of the Second Amendment, one of the lawful purposes for which law-abiding citizens possess modern, for that era, firearms was for service in the militia. The court surveyed several laws from that era that not only permitted but essentially required law-abiding citizens to provide for their own use modern military-style small arms. Against that backdrop, the court concluded that a sawed-off shotgun was not the type of weapon that would be useful for military service.”

The court also concluded that the mere possession of a machine gun, without any criminal intent or use, falls under the protection of the 2A.

Kirk highlighted the court’s recognition that over 740,000 legally registered machine guns exist in the United States, noting, “If a mere 200,000 stun guns constitute ‘in common use’ under Caetano, how much does over 740,000 lawfully registered machine guns constitute under the common use test?”

A machine gun possession charge was dismissed by a district court in Kansas yesterday on Second Amendment grounds.

The court found that machine guns are clearly bearable arms, and in this case at least, the government failed to show a historical tradition to justify their ban. pic.twitter.com/tCou5USFmE

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) August 22, 2024

This ruling, however, is just the beginning.

“This is a huge ruling, but it’s not the end,” Kirk warned. “The appeal is probably being written as we speak.”

No doubt it is. But for now, this is a massive win for gun rights advocates. Let’s hope this is the beginning of the end of the Fed’s machine gun ban.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***