In a recent Federal firearms violation case in Kansas, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Broomes dismissed two machine gun possession counts against Tamori Morgan.

The case, Case 6:23-cr-10047-JWB Document 35 Filed 08/21/24 United States of America V Tamori Morgan, upheld a Second Amendment right to possess fully automatic weapons based on a strict reading of the clause. The court found the government failed to meet the burden under two other cases—Bruen and Rahimi—which establish that gun control cases must have historical analogs at the time of the nation’s founding to be enforceable exceptions to the Second Amendment. The court also cited the Heller case.

Here’s his quote from the decision.

The government “fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that possession of the types of weapons at issue in this case are lawfully prohibited under the Second Amendment,”

And the Judge further writes,

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24 (quotation omitted). In Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment “‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’ that does not depend on service in the militia.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20 (emphasis added) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 592). It is worth noting at the outset that the Court’s language distinguishes between possessing and carrying weapons, and that § 922(o) prohibits the mere act of possessing a machinegun, without regard to whether the weapon is carried or otherwise employed.”

Without getting into the other cases, which I invite you to read, this Federal Judge has now decided that prohibiting certain weapons or people from possessing these weapons must have a “historical analog” at the time of the nation’s founding.

Hmm.

I could be wrong, but there were no fully automatic weapons at the time of the nation’s founding. Some of those battles might have turned out quite differently if there had been.

The other genuinely troubling aspect, if we draw this out to its logical conclusion, is there were few, if any, laws prohibiting domestic violence when the Second Amendment was created, and any enforcement preventing such actions was non-existent.

Do we now conclude that those who engage in domestic violence cannot be prohibited from possessing firearms, let alone fully automatic weapons, because there is no “historical analog?”

There are no “historical analogs” to thermonuclear weapons either. Still, it is a safe bet that even the founding fathers would agree that they should be prohibited even under the broadest interpretation of the Second Amendment.

To argue otherwise seems ludicrous.

Now, I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment. I believe law-abiding, responsible individuals should be able to keep and bear arms if they feel the need. Quite frankly, any efforts to remove firearms from our society through legislation or law enforcement efforts are doomed to failure.

But, while accepting the right to bear arms is sacred to many, logic would dictate that fully automatic weapons, or A-10 aircraft, or Surface to Air Missiles, are the quintessential example of “assault” weapons. Invaluable and necessary in combat and military applications but less so in civilian situations.

Anyone who has ever fired a fully automatic weapon knows you trade accuracy for volume. Effective in suppressing the oncoming enemy, but not necessarily so while defending oneself without causing undue harm to innocent people caught in a crossfire.

And where does the logic of requiring a historical analog to the nation’s founding end?

Someone’s home perimeter ringed with Claymore mines and trip wires would discourage most burglars and armed home invaders. However, just because there is no historical analog to Claymores shouldn’t automatically make possessing them a right under the Second Amendment.

Interestingly, in both cases cited in this Kansas case, Bruen and Rahimi, Justice Clarence Thomas played a prominent role. In Bruen, he wrote the majority opinion. In Rahimi, he was the lone dissent since this case lessened the rigidity of finding a historic twin in history and upheld the government’s right to temporarily restrict individuals deemed to be a threat from possessing firearms.

I would think even the most virulent supporter of the Second Amendment would agree with the rationality that possessing fully automatic weapons is unnecessary, even counterintuitive, to personal protection.

But apparently not the U.S. District Court of Kansas. So stand by for the neighbor’s new M240 Bravo. I’m sure we’ll all feel safer.

Here’s the decision itself.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help make your publishing dreams a reality.