berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 17,583
- 14,678
- 2,320
decisions affecting all of us get made by extremists.
A Trump judge ruled there’s a Second Amendment right to own machine guns
On Wednesday, a Trump judge in Kansas ruled that the Second Amendment invalidates criminal charges against a defendant charged with illegally possessing a machine gun. The case is United States v. Morgan.
Judge John Broomes’s decision in Morgan is obviously wrong, even under the Supreme Court’s most aggressively pro-gun opinion, which Broomes relied on heavily.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) cast a cloud of uncertainty over nearly all US gun laws, requiring the government’s lawyers to prove that any gun law challenged in court is consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Judges across the country have struggled to interpret and apply that vague standard, and many of them have openly complained that Bruen is unworkable in their published opinions.
Read in isolation, Bruen’s vague “historical tradition” test might be read to support Broomes’s decision. But Bruen left in place a previous legal rule, first announced in District of Columbia v. Heller (200
, which permits the government to ban “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Heller also includes a line stating that it would be “startling” to conclude that one of the Court’s early Second Amendment decisions invalidates the federal ban on machine guns.
To get around Heller’s conclusion that the government may regulate dangerous and unusual weapons like fully automatic firearms, Broomes primarily argues that there were no laws similar to the modern-day ban on machine guns either in 18th century England or during the period around America’s founding.
A Trump judge ruled there’s a Second Amendment right to own machine guns
On one hand we have a majority of Americans being in favor of more stringent gun control like more thorough background checks for the possession of a firearm. On the other, a trump appointed judge is of the opinion citizens should be able to possess a machine gun.
This is what happens when responsibility for the list of judicial nominees to be considered by a prez is left to radical organizations like the Federalist Society. It's what happens when the leader of the Senate presiding over judicial conformations has long since traded concern for the good of the country for advancing a personal agenda. It's what happens when one party abdicates its responsibility for oversight. And when a feckless prez is too busy trying to steal an election to do his job.
A Trump judge ruled there’s a Second Amendment right to own machine guns
On Wednesday, a Trump judge in Kansas ruled that the Second Amendment invalidates criminal charges against a defendant charged with illegally possessing a machine gun. The case is United States v. Morgan.
Judge John Broomes’s decision in Morgan is obviously wrong, even under the Supreme Court’s most aggressively pro-gun opinion, which Broomes relied on heavily.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) cast a cloud of uncertainty over nearly all US gun laws, requiring the government’s lawyers to prove that any gun law challenged in court is consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Judges across the country have struggled to interpret and apply that vague standard, and many of them have openly complained that Bruen is unworkable in their published opinions.
Read in isolation, Bruen’s vague “historical tradition” test might be read to support Broomes’s decision. But Bruen left in place a previous legal rule, first announced in District of Columbia v. Heller (200
To get around Heller’s conclusion that the government may regulate dangerous and unusual weapons like fully automatic firearms, Broomes primarily argues that there were no laws similar to the modern-day ban on machine guns either in 18th century England or during the period around America’s founding.
A Trump judge ruled there’s a Second Amendment right to own machine guns
On one hand we have a majority of Americans being in favor of more stringent gun control like more thorough background checks for the possession of a firearm. On the other, a trump appointed judge is of the opinion citizens should be able to possess a machine gun.
This is what happens when responsibility for the list of judicial nominees to be considered by a prez is left to radical organizations like the Federalist Society. It's what happens when the leader of the Senate presiding over judicial conformations has long since traded concern for the good of the country for advancing a personal agenda. It's what happens when one party abdicates its responsibility for oversight. And when a feckless prez is too busy trying to steal an election to do his job.
