Judge rules machine gun ownership constitutional

to the OP; yeah that's not the kind of thing that the talking heads want the common people to hear, we might deside that constitution says what it means and means what it says. God forbid that ever happened! i mean any jughead can clearly see that the second amendment was about the populus having mil-grade weapons. one can not defend against invaders with bow and arrow, (my people tried that, it don't work)
 
The case in question is US v. Morgan. It's interesting, but it's not as big as some folks are making it out to be.

It's a criminal decision on the district level. Charges were dropped on 2nd Amendment grounds, so it hasn't actually gone to trial. It doesn't strike down the NFA or Hughes amendment, and it can be appealed at the circuit level.

So it's not a binding precedent of any sort. It's just one judge's opinion in one specific situation.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
The case in question is US v. Kittson. It's interesting, but it's not as big as some folks are making it out to be.

It's a criminal decision on the district level. Charges were dropped on 2nd Amendment grounds, so it hasn't actually gone to trial. It doesn't strike down the NFA or Hughes amendment, and it can be appealed at the circuit level.

So it's not a binding precedent of any sort. It's just one judge's opinion in one specific situation.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but I believe the linked story is about US v. Morgan. https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35

The decision reads as if the government didn't take the motion to dismiss very seriously and thought it could get away with just misinterpreting NYSRPA. It's good news that the government can lose one of these cases, but it's something like a speeding ticket being thrown out because the PO forgot to retain the record of calibration for his radar gun. It means the government lost that case, not that speed limits are unconstitutional. [EDIT - As Swifty Morgan points out below, this decision is authority in this point of law in that district.]

The NFA and the registry are still legal after this decision. I could see a future in which courts of appeal get it through their heads that NYSRPA is a real decision and needs to be applied, but they find a way to fabricate and carve out an exception for the right to possession a select fire weapon. I just don't think the ratio of people who know that fully automatic fire isn't a big deal, and people who think it makes a rifle an undefeatable death hose that preferentially hits children is high enough.

If I turn out to be wrong on this, I'll be happy to have my nose rubbed in it.
 
Last edited:
Judge rules machine gun ownership constitutional
Click to expand...

No, sorry, a judge did NOT rule that.

The headline is attention grabbing BS, and not even remotely factual or accurate. This is common with headlines, and, it's not a new thing.

From what I can gather, what was ruled on was a single specific case, and the language and argument the prosecution used to justify charges being brought.

This was not a ruling on the law, or the legal status of machine guns, or any general principles beyond the specific case under consideration.

Essentially the case was tossed because the judge ruled the prosecution had not done a proper job, and what they presented to the court did not "pass muster".

There cannot be any appeal, because the case was never tried in court, so thinking this one is going to be tossed around the court system simply isn't going to happen.

The prosecution could refile charges, and IF they craft an argument the court accepts as worthy, the matter could go to trial, and if it does, THEN there is something for the legal system to work with.

Until/unless that happens this ruling, while making headlines, is a moot point.
 
2wheelwander said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...S&cvid=92fad9f7e20d4ec08b9e453767754edd&ei=12

Didn't find this posted.

This will be fun to follow.
Click to expand...
Well, I own a machine gun - legally. This is pretty clear. The question is whether I can legally own a post-86 machine gun. Is this same judge going to say that it is my constitutional right to:

1. Convert an existing semi-auto rifle to full auto? Or,
2. Manufacture newly designed select-fire rifles and then sell them to the public?

I think I want clarity on that before I embark down that road.
 
This court didn't expand any of your rights. [EDIT - As Swifty Morgan points out below, this decision is authority in this point of law in that district.]

It did confirm your right as a criminal defendant to walk on a charge for which the state doesn't carry the burden of explaining how your behavior could be illegal.
 
Last edited:
I think I want clarity on that before I embark down that road.
Click to expand...

I certainly would! :D

In this matter, the judge did not rule on machine guns, he ruled on the prosecution's case, and found it lacking.

The PRESS is saying the judge ruled machinegun ownership is legal, which, actually the judge did not do.
 
I am just a retired IP and employment lawyer, so I am no authority on gun laws, but I skimmed the decision, and it looks like the judge is saying mere possession is not enough to make a machine gun both "dangerous and unusual," so 922(o) can't be applied constitutionally to well-behaved people who merely own machine guns. If so, this could apply to other defendants in similar situations.

He appears to believe it would be unconstitutional to apply 922(o) to a person who merely possesses a machine gun, while allowing for the possibility that a person who uses a machine gun to terrify people, perhaps by brandishing it, could be prosecuted constitutionally under 922(o).

If objects to the 922(o) restriction on possession, which is what it looks like our buddy Tamori was accused of, then maybe the decision is a bigger deal than people understand.

He writes about the legality of possessing BATF-stamp weapons, not to show he approves of 922(o), but to show that such weapons are not unusual. That's on page 8.

In any event, it's important to remember that laws mean what judges say they mean, not what legislators intend them to mean. Judges interpret laws however they want, so if other district judges decide possession is legal, then it's legal until they get reversed, and if they continue saying they're illegal, the same principle applies.

A judge can look at a law saying it's illegal to plant potatoes in April and say it makes it unlawful to give a goose a driver's license.

If you think I'm kidding, read up on Brown v. Board of Education and "all deliberate speed." Amazing twisting of the plain language of a decision.

The question that's important to Tamori is whether jeopardy attached before the case was dismissed. If so, Tamori is in the clear. But can he keep his machine guns as long as he behaves relatively well? If he can't be prosecuted for possessing them, can the government keep them?

Interesting fact: judges have been known to frustrate prosecutors by ruling on motions to dismiss after juries were empaneled. Once the jury is in the box, jeopardy attaches, and any dismissal becomes permanent.
 
Personally, I would support getting rid of stamps and the 1986 business. For one thing, many, many people legitimately need automatic weapons, and for another, the dramatic increase in illegally modified weapons has tipped the balance heavily in favor of dirtbags.

I would love to have a machine gun, but I would not be willing to pay to feed it.
 
.22 full auto?

I am saving the bux for the Hatsan Blitz. My HPA compressor will be here in a couple days.
One can have full auto .22 velocities of 950 FPS with .20-25 grain or more lead pellets. More snort than .22 LR, no powder and primers.
Full auto has been a dream/wish for a lot of years, when I can scratch that itch for less than 1000 dollars, sign me up. I am retired, I saved up for retirement, toys are what I do.
I'm afraid the gun grabbers will be after these soon, could even be another 1986 for registration, that of course is complete speculation.
I am also very much a pneumatics guy, I designed systems for years in the dental biz, this high pressure stuff is fascinating. I've also worked a lot with high pressure med gas. so am very aware and careful.
 
Swifty Morgan said:
I am just a retired IP and employment lawyer, so I am no authority on gun laws, but I skimmed the decision, and it looks like the judge is saying mere possession is not enough to make a machine gun both "dangerous and unusual," so 922(o) can't be applied constitutionally to well-behaved people who merely own machine guns. If so, this could apply to other defendants in similar situations.

He appears to believe it would be unconstitutional to apply 922(o) to a person who merely possesses a machine gun, while allowing for the possibility that a person who uses a machine gun to terrify people, perhaps by brandishing it, could be prosecuted constitutionally under 922(o).
Click to expand...

I'm just an estate/transactional lawyer, so this isn't my work either.

I was wide of the mark in my prior explanation.

The government lost the argument on the law, not a mere failure to provide evidence. In that federal jurisdiction, this decision is authority on the issue of whether 922(o) can be enforced against someone possessing a machine gun. Consequently, my analogy to a speeding ticket for which the government hadn't kept a radar gun calibration record is wrong. This would be more like a Michigan court finding no legal basis for 20mph speed limits in school zones. It doesn't render all speed limits everywhere unenforceable, but it should be a problem for a Michigan court enforcing any 20mph school zone speed limits.

The decision is clear enough, so lack of clarity isn't the practical problem. The practical problem would be that another judge in that district could enforce 922(o) and the conflict would be a great reason for the circuit court to accept an appeal and enforce 922(o).

It would be unpleasant to be the defendant in that case.

Thank you for catching this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top