happeningtime.webm
[Hide] (1022KB, 1280x720, 00:02) https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35
It's going to appeals court and doesn't apply to anyone but defendant, but this is a major first step and it's worth following US v. Morgan.
Judge John Broomes (a Trump appointee) stuck down the law because it fails under Bruen and because he found the definition of "machine gun" never actually says it only covers firearms and is thus overbroad.
>The court notes that this definition is extremely broad. It does not, for instance, include a projectile in the definition like the definitions for a “rifle” or “shotgun” do under 18 U.S.C. § 921 or § 5845. Nor does it require that a projectile or “shot” be expelled through the energy of an explosive or other propellant, as contemplated under the definitions of “rifle,” “shotgun,” “any other weapon” and “destructive” device” in § 5854(c) through (f), or the definitions of a “firearm,” “shotgun,” or “rifle” in § 921(a). Thus, this definition seems to encompass everything from an aircraft-mounted automatic cannon to a small hand-held taser or stun gun that can easily be placed inside a handbag and which shoots multi-shot bursts of electrical particles with a single pull of the trigger, or a fully automatic BB gun that shoots multiple rounds of metal projectiles using compressed air. The court is not, of course, faced with a situation where the government has charged someone under § 922(o) with illegal possession of a taser or a BB gun.
Even as someone familiar with every reason to kill the NFA (I can recite the corrupt acts of Ragon and that 2% on was too high for Grosjean v. American Press Co from memory), the fact that, as written, that "machine gun" doesn't have to be a firearm is an entirely new one to me.