10th Circuit Takes Up Machine Gun Case Following Surprising Pro-2A Ruling

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit heard a pivotal oral argument in the case of United States v. Morgan. This case became significant after a district court judge, Judge Broomes, ruled that machine guns are protected under the Second Amendment.

This decision came as a surprise, especially considering the longstanding regulations restricting automatic firearms in the United States. According to Mark Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, this ruling is important because it challenges the federal government’s position on regulating machine guns, a point that could have broader implications for Second Amendment rights in the future.

The Case Overview

At the center of the case is Tamora Morgan, who was accused of possessing two automatic firearms: an Anderson Manufacturing 300 caliber machine gun and a Glock modified with a switch that allegedly converted it into a fully automatic handgun. Judge Broomes’ ruling that these weapons are covered under the Second Amendment sparked both praise and controversy. 

As Mark Smith explains, the judge found that machine guns fall squarely under the definition of “arms” as outlined in the Second Amendment, shifting the burden of proof onto the government to show why such weapons should be banned or regulated.

The Government’s Appeal

Following the district court’s ruling, the U.S. government appealed the decision to the 10th Circuit, arguing that Morgan should be convicted for possessing the machine guns. In this appeal, the government contended that these firearms were inherently dangerous and posed a public safety risk, and therefore, should be subject to regulation. 

However, Smith highlighted that during the oral arguments, the government struggled to provide historical justification for banning machine guns, particularly in light of the text-based and historical analysis laid out in Heller and Bruen.

The Textual and Historical Analysis

A key element of the case revolves around the interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to Smith, the question at hand is whether machine guns are considered “arms” protected by the Constitution. Heller and Bruen provide the framework for interpreting the Second Amendment, focusing on the historical context and whether a firearm is in “common use” for lawful purposes. Smith argues that machine guns, despite their regulation, meet the definition of “arms” under the Second Amendment and that any regulation or ban must be justified by a historical tradition of such restrictions.

The Bruen and Heller Precedents

The Heller decision of 2008 and the Bruen ruling of 2022 have solidified the understanding that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. As Smith notes, the courts must apply these precedents when evaluating gun regulations. These rulings emphasize that the Second Amendment protects arms that are in common use and commonly owned by law-abiding citizens. The question is whether machine guns, though heavily regulated, fit this definition. For Smith, the answer is yes, especially considering that a significant number of legally registered machine guns are in civilian hands.

The Burden of Proof

Another critical aspect of the argument involves the burden of proof. As Smith points out, when it comes to Second Amendment cases, the government must prove that a firearm is “dangerous and unusual” to justify its regulation. This principle comes from Bruen, which emphasized that restrictions must be grounded in historical tradition. Smith explains that in this case, the government has failed to prove that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” enough to warrant a ban, especially when considering the relatively small number of civilian-owned machine guns compared to other firearms.

The Role of Gun Technology

During the oral arguments, the court also discussed the technology behind automatic firearms. Smith explains that the key issue is not just the type of weapon, but how it functions in comparison to other firearms. For instance, while an M16 is a military-style weapon, other semi-automatic firearms can be converted into fully automatic weapons with modifications, such as the Glock involved in this case. 

The argument centers on whether such conversions should affect the legal status of the firearm under the Second Amendment. As Smith notes, understanding gun technology is crucial when interpreting laws regarding firearms, as it helps courts assess whether a weapon should be considered “bearable” and therefore protected.

The Question of “Common Use”

The Bruen decision introduced the concept of “common use” as a way to determine whether a weapon is protected under the Second Amendment. If a weapon is widely owned and used for lawful purposes, it is presumed to be protected. Smith highlights that while machine guns are not as common as other types of firearms, they are still in use among collectors, shooting enthusiasts, and law enforcement agencies. This, Smith argues, supports the idea that machine guns are in “common use,” which would make them eligible for protection under the Second Amendment.

The Political Implications of the Case

The Morgan case is more than just a legal dispute – it has significant political ramifications. If the 10th Circuit rules in favor of Morgan, it could be a major victory for Second Amendment advocates, reinforcing the idea that all arms, including machine guns, are protected by the Constitution. 

However, Smith cautions that the government is likely to continue pushing for stricter regulations on firearms, particularly as the political climate around gun control becomes more polarized. As he explains, the ruling in this case could set a precedent for future legal challenges to firearm regulations.

The Supreme Court’s Likely Involvement

Smith’s analysis also addresses the potential for the Supreme Court to get involved in this case, which could ultimately determine the fate of machine gun ownership in the U.S. While Smith is optimistic about the outcome of the Morgan case in the 10th Circuit, he is more cautious about the Supreme Court’s current composition. 

He argues that the court is not yet positioned to issue a favorable ruling for gun rights advocates when it comes to machine guns, given the political climate and the court’s history on Second Amendment cases. This, Smith warns, means that even if the 10th Circuit rules in favor of Morgan, the Supreme Court could still overturn that decision.

Looking Toward the Future

As the case continues to unfold, Smith and other legal experts are closely monitoring the 10th Circuit’s actions. If the court rules in favor of Morgan, it could lead to a wave of legal challenges to other firearm regulations, potentially shifting the balance of gun rights in the U.S. However, as Smith points out, the outcome of this case is still uncertain, and much will depend on the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and the role of historical tradition in regulating firearms.

A Critical Moment for Gun Rights

The Morgan case is a crucial moment for the future of gun rights in America. With the 10th Circuit’s oral argument now in the books, all eyes are on the court as it considers the question of whether the Second Amendment protects machine guns. Mark Smith’s insights shed light on the legal challenges ahead, the burden of proof the government faces, and the potential for future appeals. 

Regardless of the outcome, this case will likely have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the future of firearm regulations in the U.S. Gun rights advocates are watching closely, knowing that this decision could set a precedent for years to come.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.

The article 10th Circuit Takes Up Machine Gun Case Following Surprising Pro-2A Ruling first appeared on Survival World.