A federal judge in Mississippi has just dismissed a machine gun possession charge, marking the second time in recent history that such a case has been thrown out. Chris Eger of Guns.com first reported on the case, U.S. vs. Justin Bryce Brown, explaining that Judge Carlton W. Reeves ruled the federal charge was inconsistent with American history and tradition regarding firearm regulations.
The case is yet another test of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun laws must align with the nation’s historical precedent.
A Major Shake-Up in Gun Law
The ruling raises big questions about the constitutionality of the federal machine gun ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). But before anyone rushes to buy a new automatic weapon, it’s important to understand the scope of this decision – and what it means for the future of gun rights in America.
The Court’s Decision: A Blow to the Machine Gun Ban
According to Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes of the Armed Attorneys YouTube channel, this case was not a broad constitutional challenge to the law but rather an “as-applied” challenge – meaning it only affected Justin Bryce Brown himself.
Brown, who had no prior felony convictions, argued that his Second Amendment rights protected his ability to own a machine gun. The judge agreed and dismissed the case, following the logic set by Bruen.
Setting a Precedent
Taylor and Hayes emphasized that this case, while limited in scope, sets a precedent that could influence future legal battles. They pointed out that in pre-Bruen times, most Second Amendment cases came from criminal trials, just like this one. Now, similar cases are being re-examined under the new historical analysis required by the Supreme Court, and gun owners are seeing wins that would have been unheard of just a few years ago.
Dangerous and Unusual? The Government’s Losing Argument
One of the key points in this ruling was whether machine guns are considered “dangerous and unusual”, a standard often used to justify restrictions on certain weapons. William Kirk of Washington Gun Law explained that the government failed to provide historical precedent for restricting machine gun ownership in a way that aligns with Bruen’s standard.
Kirk noted that the government’s arguments didn’t convince the judge. Prosecutors pointed to past rulings upholding the ban, but those rulings were based on the old two-part balancing test, which the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in Bruen.
The judge emphasized that machine guns may be dangerous, but the government failed to prove they are unusual. In fact, ATF data from 2021 showed there were over 740,000 lawfully owned machine guns in the United States. That, the judge reasoned, is far from unusual.
Is This the Beginning of the End for the Machine Gun Ban?
Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News called the ruling a “huge win” but also cautioned against overreacting. While this decision pokes a hole in the federal machine gun ban, it doesn’t strike it down nationwide. Instead, it provides another strong legal argument for gun rights advocates looking to challenge 922(o) in future cases.
Yanis also noted that the government is likely to appeal this decision. With a new Attorney General just sworn in, it remains to be seen how the Department of Justice will handle this case going forward. But if similar rulings continue, the federal ban on machine guns could be on shaky legal ground.
The Morgan Case: Another Domino Falls
This isn’t the first time a federal court has tossed out a machine gun possession charge. As Chris Eger reported, the 2023 U.S. vs. Tamori Morgan case in Kansas reached a similar conclusion, ruling that 922(o) lacked historical precedent. The government has since appealed that ruling, and it’s unclear how the higher courts will respond.
Judge Reeves referenced the Morgan case in his ruling, acknowledging that while it is an outlier, it still represents a faithful application of the law. If multiple courts begin to follow this logic, the machine gun ban could face serious legal challenges across the country.
The Bruen Effect: A New Legal Landscape
A recurring theme in all these cases is the impact of the Bruen decision. Taylor and Hayes pointed out that before Bruen, courts often deferred to lawmakers and used “interest balancing” to justify gun restrictions. Now, the Supreme Court has shifted the burden onto the government, requiring it to prove that modern gun laws align with historical traditions of firearm regulation.
That shift is causing problems for many long-standing gun control measures, including 922(o), the bump stock ban, and restrictions on pistol braces. Courts are now asking whether any historical firearm bans existed that resemble modern laws – and so far, the government is struggling to find examples.
The ATF’s Response: Panic Mode?
Following the ruling, the ATF reportedly sent out emails and voicemails to federal firearms licensees (FFLs), reminding them that machine gun bans were still in effect. As Jared Yanis noted, the agency seemed to be scrambling to control the narrative, likely aware that this ruling could inspire further legal challenges.
This response mirrors the ATF’s actions after previous legal defeats, such as the bump stock ban being struck down. It’s clear that federal agencies are feeling the pressure as courts continue to rule against broad gun control measures.
Will This Ruling Lead to More Machine Gun Cases?
While the ruling only applies to Brown, it provides legal ammunition for future cases. As Chris Eger explained, the Firearms Policy Coalition has already highlighted the significance of this case, noting that it adds weight to existing legal challenges.
If other defendants use similar arguments, courts could begin striking down more machine gun charges, making it harder for the government to justify 922(o) in future prosecutions. This case is a small but important step in a much larger legal battle.
What Happens Next?
For now, machine guns are still illegal for most Americans, and 922(o) remains in effect. However, this ruling could influence other courts, especially in the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit, which is known for strong Second Amendment rulings.
As William Kirk pointed out, the Justice Department must now decide whether to appeal. If they do, and the Fifth Circuit upholds the ruling, it could set a legal precedent that would make it even harder to justify the machine gun ban nationwide.
A Game Changer or Just Another Brick in the Wall?
This case is not an overnight victory for gun owners, but it’s another significant crack in federal firearm restrictions. Jared Yanis, Emily Taylor, Richard Hayes, and William Kirk all agree – while this ruling doesn’t erase 922(o), it sets the stage for future legal challenges.
If courts continue ruling this way, the federal machine gun ban may not survive much longer. But as always, legal battles take time, and the government will fight tooth and nail to preserve its authority.
For now, gun owners should stay vigilant, informed, and engaged. The fight isn’t over, but for those who support the Second Amendment, this ruling is another step in the right direction.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.