Machine guns are possibly the single scariest type of firearm to anti-2A folks. After all, the idea of being able to shoot “thousands of rounds a second” (or whatever other stuff ignorant anti-2A people say about firearms) must be absolutely terrifying to someone who is scared to shoot back if they have to.
For reference, even M134 mini guns on attack helicopters are rated up to a maximum of 6,000 rounds per minute, which works out to be about 100 rounds per second, not thousands of rounds per second. But if you try to tell those details to an anti-2A zealot, they’ll likely get upset with you for correct their feelings with facts.
But, realistically, for most people in the U.S., because of the regulations and costs associated with getting your hands on a machine gun, they have been, for the most part, banned unless you have a lot of time and money to put towards that purchase. And that’s if you can find one for sale.
But could a recent court decision in Kansas have changed that situation? Zachary Stieber writes,
A U.S. judge has dismissed charges against a woman who possessed a machine gun, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that shifted the framework for how courts analyze cases dealing with constitutional rights.
Machine guns fall under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, U.S. District Judge John Broomes found.
That means prosecutors must show that the law barring possession of machine guns is rooted in historical firearm restrictions, under the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, he added.
“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,” Broomes wrote in his 10-page ruling on Aug. 21. “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.”
So, does this mean that machine guns are no longer regulated in the U.S.? Not so fast. Stieber continues:
The judge cautioned that the ruling applies only to [the woman charged in this case] and that the government could later demonstrate that the machine gun ban is rooted in the nation’s history.
That is not the answer that I wanted to hear.
But this case could be cited in other incidents when people are charged with possession violations that the Bruen decision could effect, so, there is hope in the future that more gun regulation will be stripped out of the books and tossed in the trash can where they belong.
“The judge cautioned that the ruling applies only to [the woman charged in this case] and that the government could later demonstrate that the machine gun ban is rooted in the nation’s history.”
Maybe the government “could” or can, but only if facts which satisfy the Bruen requirement are there to be dug up. Plus, another similar ruling might come up, except it will apply universally and not limited to just the case at hand. Then we can all go out and buy machine guns until the government demonstrates that the machine gun ban is rooted in the nation’s history.