Staff Reports
The recent ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has sent shockwaves through the Second Amendment advocacy community. The court upheld the federal ban on civilian ownership of machine guns, raising significant concerns about the interpretation of gun rights in America. This ruling, which flies in the face of historical understanding of the Second Amendment, underscores a growing divide between the rights of lawful gun owners and the government’s attempts to restrict those rights.
In the case of United States versus Morgan, the court reversed a previous decision that favored the defendant, Tamori Morgan, who was found in possession of a machine gun and a conversion device. While Morgan’s actions are indeed questionable, the core issue remains whether the law itself is constitutional. The lower court had rightfully pointed out that machine guns should be protected under the Second Amendment as “bearable arms,” a point the 10th Circuit decided to ignore in its ruling.
The appellate court’s reasoning is alarming. It positions the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that a weapon is protected under the Second Amendment, rather than requiring the government to justify the ban. This effectively shifts the balance of power toward an expansive interpretation of government authority over personal freedoms. The court’s rejection of machine guns as “commonly used” for lawful self-defense is also troubling. The definition of self-defense should not be narrowly constrained to a select few firearms, especially when the very nature of self-defense can demand a variety of options—some of which may include machine guns.
Moreover, the court relied heavily on a misinterpretation of previous rulings and historical context. Citing Justice Scalia’s remarks in *District of Columbia v. Heller*, the court suggested that machine guns could be banned due to their association with criminal activity from the 1920s and 30s. However, this perspective fails to recognize the evolving context of lawful ownership in the modern era. It also ignores the fact that the same government that restricts these firearms has created a stigma around them by enforcing such bans, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where fewer civilians own them, thus allowing the court to argue they are “not commonplace.”
The outcome of this case is disheartening for gun rights advocates, as it represents a continuation of the trend whereby courts interpret the Second Amendment in a way that infringes on lawful ownership of firearms. The 10th Circuit decision shows a willingness to reinforce existing bans rather than focus on protecting the rights of citizens as outlined in the Constitution.
As this legal battle unfolds further, Second Amendment supporters must remain vigilant. The potential appeal to the Supreme Court could pave the way for a more definitive ruling on the rights surrounding machine guns and their use. The fundamental question remains: should the Second Amendment protect all arms equally, or are some weapons deemed “too dangerous” for civilian ownership? Advocates must continue to voice their opinions and push back against oppressive laws that seek to diminish their rights.
In the current landscape, where the government frequently creates restrictions that they then argue justify further limitations, the fight for Second Amendment rights becomes even more critical. It is vital for responsible gun owners to remain informed and active in this ongoing struggle, ensuring that the rights enshrined by the founders are upheld for current and future generations.
