close
close

Kansas judge dismisses machine gun case after SCOTUS ruling on gun rights

play

A judge in the US state of Kansas has dismissed federal charges of possession of a submachine gun, citing the Second Amendment and recent rulings by the US Supreme Court in gun rights cases. One such charge was for possession of a “Glock switch”.

U.S. District Judge John Broomes on Wednesday dismissed two counts of illegal possession of a submachine gun against Tamori Morgan. Morgan was indicted by a grand jury in U.S. District Court in Wichita in April 2023.

Broomes wrote that prosecutors “failed to meet their burden to prove that possession of the types of weapons at issue in this case is prohibited by law under the Second Amendment.”

Prosecutors alleged that Morgan possessed “an Anderson Manufacturing Model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun” and “a machine gun conversion device,” also known as a Glock switch, on October 17, 2022. They sought the seizure of the AM-15, a Glock 33, a conversion device, and ammunition.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

A Glock switch is a device that allows a semi-automatic Glock pistol to convert into a fully automatic firearm and is classified as a machine gun under federal law, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Such devices are increasingly the focus of the country's law enforcement agencies because they are capable of firing a large number of bullets in a short period of time, but at the same time are difficult to control.

More: Is a Glock switch illegal? What you need to know about the devices

The charges were brought under 18 USC § 922(o), the federal law that prohibits the possession of a machine gun except by the government and by individuals who, under a grandfather clause, possess a machine gun that was lawfully owned before the law took effect in 1986. According to an ATF report, there were about 741,000 legally registered machine guns in the United States in 2021, including about 4,000 in Kansas.

Morgan's public defender, David Freund, filed a motion to dismiss in November, and the judge later canceled the hearing scheduled for January. A hearing on the motion was not held until earlier this month.

Freund wrote that the machine gun ban “violates the history and tradition of the Second Amendment.” He questioned “whether it is consistent with the nation's historic tradition of gun regulation to deprive anyone, without exception, of the right to own a machine gun.”

The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Smith, responded that the country has a historic tradition of “regulating dangerous and unusual firearms.” He also argued that “the plain language of the Second Amendment does not cover the possession of machine guns.”

The judge rejected a challenge to the law at first sight, as this would require proof that it is unconstitutional in all its areas of application. However, he allowed the challenge in its actual application.

“In summary, the Government has failed in its obligation in this case to Bruen And Rahimi to use historical analogies to show that the regulation of the weapons at issue in this case is consistent with the country's history of gun regulation,” Broomes wrote, referring to U.S. Supreme Court decisions on gun rights in 2022 and 2024. “In fact, the government has made little attempt to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has suggested that the Bruen An analysis is not just a suggestion.”

Broomes wrote that he interpreted the Supreme Court's July decision in a gun rights case before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as an indication that the Supreme Court means what it says: The constitutionality of laws regulating the ownership of firearms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution must be assessed from the perspective of Bruen Frame.”

The 6-3 decision in the 2022 Bruen ruling said that to withstand legal challenges, gun laws must be “consistent with the historic tradition of gun laws in this country,” and courts should look to “historical analogies.”

Broomes said prosecutors in this case failed in their duty to find a historical equivalent to the machine gun possession charge.

“Importantly,” he added, “this decision says little about what the government might prove in a future case. … The Court does not comment on whether the government might meet its burden in another case to show a historically analogous limitation that would justify § 922(o).”

Everytown for Gun Safety called the decision “reckless.” Janet Carter of Everytown Law said the judge “put the gun lobby's deadly agenda above the safety of Kansas residents.”

“Machine guns – weapons capable of automatic fire – have been subject to strict federal law since the 1930s,” Carter said in a statement. “The laws banning them are not only constitutional, but also critical to public safety. These weapons of war, which can cause irreparable harm to countless innocent people, have no place in our communities.”

Jason Alatidd is a statehouse reporter for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at [email protected]. Follow him on X @Jason_Alatidd.

You may also like...