The Feds have a problem, and it is a big one. A Federal Judge in Kansas just dismissed charges against a man for “illegally” owning a machine gun. The court said that, as these are bearable arms and the State failed miserably to prove historical precedent for any restriction, the case was thrown out.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Wichita, Kansas, dropped two counts of possessing a machine gun in defiance of federal law assessed against defendant Tamori Morgan. Last year, the DOJ indicted Morgan for possessing an Anderson Manufacturing model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun as well as a “Glock switch” which made his Glock model 33 .357 SIG fire like an automatic weapon. …
“The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are ‘bearable arms’ within the original meaning of the amendment. The court further finds that the government has failed to establish that this nation’s history of gun regulation justifies the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) to Defendant,” Broomes wrote.
Professional hoplophobes are outraged, and the Feds (who love guns for themselves) are equally unhappy, but not for the same reasons. Gun-grabbers are screaming about blood in the streets, but the Feds have a different problem. They want to appeal the ruling, but they don’t. Given the current character of the US Supreme Court, the case could end any federal machine gun ban, and they don’t want that.
And you can carry a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher (I’d like to buy an SMAW please), so …
As I write this, the US Attorney has not filed for an appeal. They denied a request from The AP for comment. Dead silence. It suggests (to me, at least) that they’ve run this up the flagpole in DC and are waiting for some guidance. The Constitutional geniuses in the weaponized DOJ will gather the cabal to consider their options. Maybe call their guy in Vegas, who will run the odds and get back to them. Is it too much to risk?
Someone needs to make a decision. They can’t wait to see if the Democrats steal the November election, but if they do, I’d expect some sham impeachments and prompt progressive replacements on the highest court as soon as late January, after which all bets are off. A Liberal congress would likely fast-track restrictions, which the modified court would rubberstamp it (if challenged) faster than Kamala went from ill-tempered albatross to Joyful savior.
But even in today’s environment, there’s no guarantee of that. Do they risk an appeal or eat the local ruling and bide their time?
