Machinegun ban found unconstitutional in part by KS Court

KANSAS (KSNT) - In a groundbreaking order out of the U.S. District Court of Kansas, a man charged with possessing machineguns had his case dismissed after the court found "the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover the possession of machineguns."

The decision by Judge John Broomes hinged on the Bruen and Rahimi requirement to demonstrate historical analogues that prove the ban is consistent with the nation's history. Broomes found the government hadn't met its burden to prove historical analogues.

"Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion," the court order reads.

The case came about when the defendant was charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The defendant was charged with possessing a machinegun and machinegun conversion device, also known as a "Glock switch".

The defendant's argument was that the plain text of the Second Amendment applied to his conduct.

"This standard requires a “historical analogue” between the modern regulation and
historical regulations, not a “historical twin.”," the defendant argued under United States v. Rahimi.

The defendant argued that under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and under 26 U.S.C. § 5845 definition of a machinegun "encompass everything from an aircraft-mounted automatic cannon to a small hand-held taser or stun gun that can easily be placed inside a handbag and which shoots multishot bursts of electrical particles with a single pull of the trigger."

"Here, Plaintiff is charged with two counts of machinegun possession, and both counts apply
to arms that can be carried in the hand. Thus, by definition, the machinegun and Glock switch are bearable arms within the plain text of the Second Amendment," the court analysis said.

Under Bruen and Rahimi the government must now justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

"To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden," the case document reads.

You can read the full court document below:

For more Kansas news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here.