>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Prosecutors in Morgan’s case charged him with the possession of an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a device known as a “Glock switch,” which is used to convert a semi-automatic Glock handgun into a fully automatic weapon. According to court documents, these charges were brought under the framework of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, both of which sought to regulate and later prohibit machine guns.
However, Judge Broomes contended that the government failed to provide historical evidence that such regulations are rooted in the American tradition. He pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun restrictions must be in line with the nation’s historical tradition of regulation to be deemed constitutional.
In that landmark case, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s requirement that individuals show a “special need” to obtain an unrestricted concealed carry license. The ruling reinforced that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense is deeply embedded in the fabric of American history, a sentiment echoed by Judge Broomes in his ruling on machine guns.
Broomes’ opinion was clear and unequivocal: the government did not meet its burden to justify the application of the law against Morgan. “They are protected within the original meaning of the amendment,” Broomes stated, underscoring his belief that machine guns fall under the Second Amendment’s protections.
The implications of this ruling are vast, and legal experts are watching closely to see if the Biden-Harris Justice Department will appeal the decision. Given the administration’s focus on gun control, an appeal seems likely, although no official announcement has been made at this time, according to the Daily Caller.
This is not the only recent legal challenge to the Biden administration’s gun control measures. In May, another Trump-appointed judge, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, ruled that the administration could not enforce a new rule requiring background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows or other locations outside of brick-and-mortar gun stores.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling came just before the regulation was set to take effect, blocking the federal government from enforcing it against several gun-rights organizations, including Gun Owners of America. However, the ruling did not extend to all states, with Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah still under the regulation’s purview.
These rulings underscore the ongoing tension between federal gun control efforts and the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. As the Biden administration continues to push for stricter gun laws, it faces mounting legal challenges from a determined and well-organized gun rights movement.
Brutal “Pocket Weapon” Stops Hearts (discounted for next 78)
Earlier in May, twenty-six Republican attorneys general filed lawsuits in federal courts across Arkansas, Florida, and Texas, aiming to stop the enforcement of the new background check rule. The plaintiffs argue that the rule oversteps constitutional bounds and that President Joe Biden lacks the authority to impose such regulations unilaterally.
The outcome of these cases, along with Judge Broomes’ ruling on the machine gun ban, will likely set the stage for future battles over gun control in America. The decisions made in these courts could have lasting impacts on the nation’s gun laws and the balance of power between federal authority and individual rights.
As the legal battles unfold, one thing remains clear: the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment is far from over, and the courts will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of American gun rights.
