A federal judge in Kansas dismissed charges against a man for possessing a machine gun, challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban. The ruling, which questions the historical basis of the ban, could have significant implications for future firearm regulations.

WICHITA, KS (2-minute read) — A federal judge in Kansas has dismissed charges against Tamori Morgan, a local man accused of possessing a machine gun via a Glock switch, citing a lack of constitutional support for the federal ban on such firearms. This ruling by U.S. District Judge John Broomes marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over gun control laws in the United States, following a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 2022 that expanded gun rights.

The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the Court introduced a new standard for evaluating firearm regulations. According to this ruling, any restrictions on firearms must align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. The Supreme Court further clarified this standard by stating that modern firearms restrictions need only a “historical analogue” rather than a direct historical precedent to be deemed valid.

Judge Broomes, appointed by former President Donald Trump, concluded that prosecutors failed to identify a historical analogue that would justify charging Morgan under the machine gun ban. The ruling is seen as a significant interpretation of the Bruen decision, as it questions the constitutionality of one of the nation’s longstanding firearm restrictions.

Morgan was initially indicted in 2023 for illegal possession of a machine gun and a conversion device, commonly referred to as a “Glock switch.”

In court, prosecutors argued that the weapons in Morgan’s case did not fall under the Second Amendment’s protection, which guarantees the right to bear arms for self-defense. However, Judge Broomes disagreed, stating that the machine gun and Glock switch should be considered bearable arms under the plain text of the Second Amendment. While prosecutors pointed to historical laws from the 1700s and 1800s that prohibited the use of “dangerous or unusual weapons,” Broomes countered that these examples focused on preventing the use of such weapons to terrorize the public, rather than banning their possession outright.

This ruling could have far-reaching implications, particularly as it may set a precedent for challenging other long-standing gun control laws. As the case progresses, it is likely to attract significant attention from both gun rights advocates and those pushing for stricter gun control.

Safety Tip: Always stay informed about your state’s firearm laws and regulations. Understanding the legal landscape is crucial for responsible firearm ownership.