Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Right to Own Machine Guns Under the Second Amendment

How far does the Second Amendment go? A Kansas district judge recently decided that machine guns are fair game with the Constitution. The United States v. Morgan was a case against one Tamori Morgan who was charged with illegally possessing a machine gun. Morgan argued that the Second Amendment covered these machine guns and a machine gun conversion tool commonly known as a “glock switch”. Therefore Morgan decided to challenge the decision in an attempt to get the charges dismissed. But before we go over the ruling let's establish some background:

The second amendment, which comes from the 1789 Bill of Rights, states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In layman's terms, the people have a right to own guns and use them for their security. This was necessary to protect against tyranny in the opinions of the Founding Fathers. This is understandable as they had just overcome a tyrannical government in order to establish a government by the people for the people. It was essential to them that we the people have the tools at our disposal to defend ourselves against any threat both foreign and domestic. But the less tools are not very specific. It’s been going back and forth on where these constitutional protections end, as it stands it’s a case-by-case gray area.

Some scholars claim that it is unnecessary in the modern world and that it shouldn't apply to modern weapons. There have been many challenges to the Second Amendment in the forms of proposals to ban certain types of firearms chiefly assault rifles.  We can see this in proposals from Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. However just like how the Constitution is a living changing document, so is the Second Amendment. It should grow and change with the times. If our government can’t evolve with the breakneck speed of technology then we won't be able to maintain our spot as the world superpower. 

During the legal battle Morgan cited  D.C. v Heller (2008) multiple times in establishing her argument, According to the Heller ruling, “the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.” Morgan believes that since she can “bear” the machine guns physically that they qualify for the amendment. Furthermore, it was decided that since it would be useful for military services it is protected by the militia section of the Heller decision. This decision has opened a window to allow a broader interpretation of heller by setting a precedent for decriminalizing other types of weapons.

In the end, the charges against Morgan have been dismissed, a promising sign for pro-gun activists. This will most likely inspire further charges against past ruling in attempts to overturn gun restrictions and regulations. 

This precedent will most likely inspire challenges to other governmental weapon bans. These cases are always difficult due to how broad the interpretation of the Second Amendment can be. It is only by reviewing past cases that the limits of firearm legality be defined. In all likelihood, we will be seeing more legal battles pertaining to these two cases for a long time.