A federal court in Mississippi has ruled that the federal ban on machine guns lacks historical precedent and is therefore unconstitutional. The decision in United States v. Brown marks the second time a court has struck down such a ban, raising questions about the future of automatic firearm regulations in the U.S.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!

Washington Gun Law President William Kirk described the ruling as a significant step in re-evaluating gun control laws under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.

“We are beginning to see different results when we apply the correct constitutional analysis,” Kirk said, emphasizing that many longstanding gun restrictions are being reconsidered through a historical lens.

The case centered around Justin Brown, who faced charges for unlawful possession of a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Brown challenged the indictment, arguing that the Second Amendment protects his right to own the firearm. The court agreed, ruling that the government failed to demonstrate a historical tradition of banning machine guns.

The judge pointed out that prior legal precedent upholding such bans was based on outdated legal tests. “Every appellate prior precedent was rendered obsolete,” the court stated, reinforcing that the Bruen decision set a new constitutional standard requiring gun laws to be consistent with historical traditions.

Kirk criticized the government’s reliance on older rulings.

“It is ridiculous how frequently the United States government and states will argue that old gun control precedent is still good precedent despite the fact that it was clearly established under an entirely separate and now rejected test,” he said.

One of the key issues in the case was whether machine guns are both “dangerous and unusual,” a standard for restricting firearms. The government argued that machine guns are particularly dangerous, but the court noted that they failed to prove they are unusual.

The ruling referenced another recent case, United States v. Morgan, which found that over 740,000 machine guns were lawfully possessed in the U.S. as of 2021.

“The government must prove that its desired firearm restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations,” the court wrote, referencing the Bruen decision. However, the court criticized the government’s approach, noting that many of its cited cases relied on outdated legal tests that Bruen had rendered obsolete.

Kirk highlighted the significance of the ruling. “This is a huge win and now a second ruling eroding a federal gun ban that really just came into existence in 1986. There really is no historical analog to justify this,” he said.

The decision applies specifically to Brown’s case and does not immediately overturn federal machine gun laws nationwide. However, the ruling could set the stage for broader challenges. Kirk noted that it remains unclear whether the Department of Justice will appeal under the newly appointed attorney general.

For now, gun rights advocates view the ruling as a major step forward in challenging restrictive firearm laws.

The court made its stance clear: “At their core, the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment cases are predicated upon a lack of trust.”

Lawmakers and courts, it implied, have failed to protect gun rights. Instead of deferring to policy arguments, the ruling reinforced that history—not government opinion—determines constitutionality.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***