Kansas Court Rules on Machine Guns

[Kevin J.]

A Kansas US District court has ruled that machine guns are protected under the 2nd Amendment as bearable arms.

"The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are “bearable arms” within the original meaning of the amendment. The court further finds that the government has failed to establish that this nation’s tradition of gun regulation justifies the application of 18 USC § 922(0) to Defendant."


District Court Tosses Machine Gun Possession Charge, Rules They’re ‘Bearable Arms’ '-' Shooting News Weekly

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35

 

[TX-Dennis]

A glimmer of hope.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Good result for the defendant. But if the Feds are smart they will not appeal, leaving this decision an outlier at the district court level.

 

[smoothshooter]

Don’t get excited.
No way the Feds are going to allow this to stand.
The old machine gun act will never be repealed.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

They have to appeal or the NFA will become a dead letter. Maybe the GCA, too.

 

[cololab]

Don’t get excited.
No way the Feds are going to allow this to stand.
The old machine gun act will never be repealed.

My sentiments exactly.
Further, I've heard that those who have invested large sums of money into these NFA controlled firearms might join with the Feds so as to potentially not have their items devalued by an influx of newly transferable (and less costly) weapons showing up on the market.

 

[stansdds]

Guaranteed, this is going to be appealed.

 

[johngalt]

While the decision affects the right to possess, does it have any affect on the ability to register new machine guns? I didn't see anything doing away with or re-opening the machine gun registry.

 

[Racer X]

While the decision affects the right to possess, does it have any affect on the ability to register new machine guns? I didn't see anything doing away with or re-opening the machine gun registry.

it points to the NFA and Hughes Ammendment interfering with the ancillary right to acquire firearms, which is obviously necessary to exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

And if we need to call up the militia, shouldn't we have M-4s and M-16s?

 

[steelslaver]

it points to the NFA and Hughes Ammendment interfering with the ancillary right to acquire firearms, which is obviously necessary to exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

And if we need to call up the militia, shouldn't we have M-4s and M-16s?

I am more of an M60 guy. I ain't gonna go no where, will have to defend the homestead

 

[johngalt]

it points to the NFA and Hughes Ammendment interfering with the ancillary right to acquire firearms, which is obviously necessary to exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

And if we need to call up the militia, shouldn't we have M-4s and M-16s?

If the decision does away with the NFA entirely, including taxes and gun registry, that would be excellent!

an M-14 would be nice to have.

 

[Greyman50]

M-16@ Raleigh show for $56K, what a deal…….

 

[smoothshooter]

They have to appeal or the NFA will become a dead letter. Maybe the GCA, too.

The NFA isn’t going anywhere.
Sorry.
Tough love.

 

[robvious]

the decision goes to one individual... it is not a blanket decision... so everyone needs to relax a bit about the NFA going away...

 

[Racer X]

the decision goes to one individual... it is not a blanket decision... so everyone needs to relax a bit about the NFA going away...

it opens a crack. others can potentially get through, or at least chip away at.

 

[Racer X]

I've thought about this a bit more. Anyone been in a class or meeting where the lead asks if there are any questions? silence. But one person finally speaks up. Then more chime in. Human nature. This judge was just the first to speak out. Expect more. Maybe not soon, but other voices will be heard.

 

[rwsmith]

I'm not interested in machine guns......

..but doggone if I'm not glad to hear stupid laws getting CHALLENGED when for years we just accepted that, "Well, the government is doing what's best for us."

One of my pet peeves is the silencer/suppressor thing. Why not ban car mufflers because bank robbers might be able to get away more easily with a muffled car. After all, only a criminal would NEED a muffled car!

Another pet peeve. Felons aren't supposed to be able to get guns. I know some personally and I believe that MOST felons have illegal guns, whether they intend to use them in crime or not isn't the point. They aren't going to be charged for having a gun illegally until they are caught for SOMETHING ELSE. Then the gun charges will be PLED AWAY.

Man, I'm started now.

 

[ladder13]

…….….good…….

 

[walnutred]

My concern with this would be that it end up before the SC. I can see a SC decision saying the 2nd does NOT apply to civilian possession of military firearms. Mainly because I cannot imagine a SC decision saying that the 2nd does allow unrestricted ownership of full auto or select fire firearms.

I would rather see the emphasis placed on removing the ban on import or manufacture of new Class 3 firearms.

 

[smoothshooter]

If the decision does away with the NFA entirely, including taxes and gun registry, that would be excellent!

an M-14 would be nice to have.

I wouldn’t waste any brain-time anticipating the repeal of the Firearms Act.

More productive to think about puppy dogs, kittens, and unicorns.