Trump-appointed federal judge issues controversial machine gun ruling implicating Second Amendment rights

In a decision that has prompted outrage among liberal opponents of the Second Amendment, a federal judge has rejected machine gun possession charges while simultaneously posing the question of whether bans on such firearms run afoul of the Constitution.

As the Associated Press reports, U.S. District Judge John Broomes, appointed to the bench by then-President Donald Trump and based in Wichita, Kansas, issued a ruling that cited a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court requiring historical analysis in the adjudication of Second Amendment questions such as the ones posed in the case at hand.

Background of case

At issue in the case were two counts of gun possession against a defendant named Tamori Morgan.

Morgan stood accused of possessing a .300-caliber machine gun as well as a conversion device referred to as a “Glock switch” capable of turning a semi-automatic weapon into one that fires in a manner similar to a machine gun.

Making reference to the aforementioned Supreme Court precedent in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Broomes declared, “The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are 'bearable arms' within the original meaning of the amendment.”

As such, according to Broomes, the government “has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical firearm regulation tradition,” as Bruen suggested.

Broomes' take stood in contrast to the position of federal prosecutors in the case who contended that the “Supreme Court has made clear that regulations of machineguns fall outside the Second Amendment.”

Reactions pour in

Pepperdine University law professor Jacob Charles gave voice to critics of Broomes' ruling, suggesting that it represents the worst – yet perhaps predictable – consequence of the Bruen decision.

Bruen, Charles says, “gives lower court judges the ability to pick and choose the historical record in a way that they think the Second Amendment should be read.”

Also expressing disappointment with the outcome was noted gun violence prevention advocacy group Brady United, which issued a statement that said, “Judge Broomes' ruling is dangerous and irresponsible. The Supreme Court has always held that the right to bear arms is not unlimited -- particularly when it comes to military-grade weapons of war."

"This decision flies in the face of the Constitution and puts the safety of our families, kids, and communities at risk. We cannot allow such a radical misreading of the law to go unchallenged," the group continued.

Though no appeal has yet been filed, pundits on the left believe that Broomes will ultimately be reversed, but those who heralded the expansion of Second Amendment protections ushered in by Bruen will likely be watching closely and working to ensure that their constitutional rights are safeguarded.