Judge Rules Machine Guns Are Protected by Second Amendment

Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, has raised concerns regarding Judge John Broomes’s recent ruling in the case of United States v. Morgan, which he argues is fundamentally flawed. Broomes’s decision heavily relies on the Supreme Court’s controversial 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which has created significant uncertainty surrounding gun laws in the United States. This ruling mandates that any challenged gun law must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, a vague standard that has left judges struggling to apply it consistently. The Bruen decision, while complicating the legal landscape for gun regulations, did maintain a precedent from the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, which allows for the prohibition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Broomes’s interpretation suggests that historical laws only restricted gun carrying to prevent public terror, implying that individuals cannot be charged for carrying illegal weapons unless they display them aggressively in public. This interpretation has raised eyebrows and sparked debate about its implications for public safety and legal consistency. Millhiser argues that Broomes’s ruling exemplifies the need to reconsider the Bruen decision, as the historical tradition test lacks substance and has led to inconsistent and troubling outcomes in lower courts. The case is set to be appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a Democratic majority, potentially influencing the outcome of this contentious legal issue.