A federal judge in Kansas ruled that the longstanding federal ban on machine guns is unconstitutional, challenging decades of gun control. Judge John W. Broomes, appointed by President Donald Trump, dismissed charges against a man accused of owning modified firearms capable of automatic fire. The ruling argues that the government could not provide historical evidence justifying the prohibition, a standard set by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. This ruling could lead to a significant shift in how federal firearm regulations are interpreted.
Judge Broomes stated that machine guns fall within the definition of “bearable arms” and are thus protected under the Second Amendment. The judge criticized the government for failing to present adequate historical analogs to support the ban, pointing out that such regulations did not exist during the country’s founding. The ruling directly challenges the National Firearms Act of 1934, which has governed machine guns and other restricted weapons for nearly 90 years.
The case involves a Kansas resident who was found in possession of modified firearms, but without any criminal intent. The government argued that machine guns are inherently dangerous and should be banned. However, Judge Broomes noted that there are over 740,000 legally registered machine guns in the United States, making them neither rare nor unusually dangerous compared to other firearms. The judge also dismissed the government’s reliance on Heller, stating that the case does not apply to machine guns.
Legal experts anticipate a swift appeal from the Department of Justice, which is likely to take the case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling is seen as a victory for gun-rights advocates, but the legal landscape remains uncertain as higher courts review the decision. Proponents of the ruling argue that it upholds constitutional protections, while opponents fear it could lead to the dismantling of critical gun control measures.
The broader implications of this ruling could be profound. Should the decision be upheld, it could lead to new challenges against other federal regulations, including bans on short-barreled rifles and other restricted firearms. Gun-control advocates warn that this could weaken public safety measures, while gun-rights supporters see it as a restoration of constitutional freedoms.
As the legal battle moves forward, this ruling could serve as a turning point in the national debate over gun control. Both sides are preparing for a protracted fight, with the future of federal firearm regulations hanging in the balance.
