UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TAMORI MORGAN

[jdege]

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc%3F2023cr10047-35&ved=2ahUKEwjgy5_y64mIAxVaj4kEHbOuIFsQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2HPhyg4jlTIRrj9eQZAZfn

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TAMORI MORGAN, Defendant.
Case No. 23-10047-JWB

Defendant Tamori Morgan is charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Defendant is charged with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 caliber machinegun and a machinegun conversion device. It was established at the hearing that the conversion device is a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a Glock, model 33, .357 SIG caliber firearm to fire as an automatic weapon.

[...]

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. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion.

[...]

Importantly, this decision says little about what the government might prove in some future case. Rather, under Bruen’s framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, it is the government’s burden to identify a historical analog to the restrictions challenged in this case. This the government has failed to do. The court expresses no opinion as to whether the government could, in some other case, meet its burden to show a historically analogous restriction that would justify § 922(o).

[...]

The motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss on Commerce Clause grounds (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

[bstrawse]

As I said in the other thread, I wouldn't get too excited about this one. I don't think it will stand up on appeal.