We reported last August how a federal judge in Kansas ruled that the federal law tightly regulating the ownership and transfer of full-auto firearms, aka machine guns, is unconstitutional. Now, a federal judge in Mississippi has ruled the same, and for many of the same reasons.
On January 29, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled in the case U.S. v. Brown that the federal law effectively banning the sale and possession of newly produced or unregistered machine guns was unconstitutional, at least for the defendant in the criminal case.
The case revolves around Justin Bryce Brown, a Mississippi man. Brown, who had no prior record, was arrested and charged with ownership of a machine gun in violation of federal law.
In his ruling, Judge Reeves said the government didn’t meet its obligation to prove that machine guns are both “dangerous” and “unusual.”
“Bruen nevertheless tells us that there is an American ‘historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” he wrote. “That is the law to be followed. The ultimate problem for the government, then, is this: although machine guns are ‘dangerous,’ it does not explain how machine guns are unusual.”
Comparing machine guns to semi-automatic firearms, Judge Reeves still concluded that the government had not proven what it must to uphold the law.
“Machine guns are even more dangerous,” Judge Reeves wrote. “There’s no dispute about that. But … dangerousness is not the end of the matter, because firearms can be dangerous and constitutionally protected. Instead, the government has the burden to prove that the firearm to be restricted is both dangerous and unusual.”
Ultimately, Judge Reeves ruled that the case against Brown must be dismissed.
“The controlling standard of the moment requires this Court to ‘determine the contours of acceptable prosecutions through the resolution of continual as-applied challenges,’ based on the evidence and arguments before it. Under that standard, Mr. Brown’s as-applied challenge is sustained. His motion is granted and the case dismissed.”
In the Kansas case mentioned at the beginning of this story, U.S. District Judge John Broomes in the case U.S. v Morgan explained how the Bruen decision played an important role in his consideration of that case.
“Defendant argues that the government cannot meet its burden to show that [the statute] is consistent with this nation’s history of firearm regulation,” Judge Broomes’ ruling stated. “To meet its burden, the government advances only two potential historical analogs. First, the government points to English common law, which it asserts prohibited riding or going armed with dangerous or usual weapons. Second, the government cites one case from the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1824 that recognized an offense to arm oneself ‘with dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people.’ But both examples are disanalogous to what Defendant is charged with here—simple possession of a machine gun.”
Unfortunately for America’s lawful gun owners, since the Mississippi case was a criminal one, the ruling applies only to the defendant. It’s likely that eventually, the Supreme Court will have to determine the legality of machine gun ownership, given how this case aligned with the Bruen standards.
