The judge in the case cited a constitutional right to carry this kind of weapon as a reason for the dismissal. Experts speculate that if this ruling is upheld on appeal it could threaten machine gun bans across the country.

“The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are ‘bearable arms’ within the original meaning of the amendment,” Judge Broomes wrote in the ruling.

The issue is that this can be open to interpretation. “To keep and bear arms” could be extended to a person in possession of a machine gun, as the amendment doesn’t say whether this type of firearm can be excluded from the amendment or not. Different people will have various opinions and interpretations of this.

The government “fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that possession of the types of weapons at issue in this case are lawfully prohibited under the Second Amendment,” Broomes wrote.

“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion of Bruen.

This device, which attaches to the slide of the Glock 33 in his possession, could increase the rate of fire so it could act like a machine gun.

Broomes believed he was simply in possession of one, something that these historic laws don’t account for. As such, the ruling went in Morgan’s favor.

This provision in federal law makes it illegal to engage in interstate or foreign commerce with firearms unless someone can meet specific requirements like a license, and section (o) specifically makes it unlawful for “any person to transfer or possess a machinegun” with limited exceptions.

Federal law also sees owning a machine gun conversion device in the same way as it sees machine guns. Regardless of whether the device is attached to the gun or not, violating this law can be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Many people are using this method so they can own a conversion device; however, the legalities of this are being questioned as it seems to be easier than ever for anyone to own one.

This increase occurred between 2017 and 2021, but there is a lot of worry that this amount will have increased since then and what the implications of this will be.

These devices have been used in several mass shootings, such as four deaths at a Sweet Sixteen party in Alabama in 2023. Other mass shootings include six people dying in a bar district in Sacramento, California, in 2022 and a police officer being shot with one in Houston in 2021.

“It’s appalling that the District Court would so brazenly put the deadly agenda of the gun lobby over the safety of Kansans. We are shocked and dismayed by this decision,” said Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals of the gun safety group Everytown Law.

Sometimes, people are caught with this type of weapon when it is too late, which is why many had hoped that machine guns would be taken from someone if they were found in possession of one. However, this ruling has set the tone for what people could expect to see in the future.

Many are now worried that this will mean similar cases will end up with the same ruling in the future, with the implications of this being dangerous to U.S. citizens due to the damage that this type of weapon can cause.

Under that standard, weapons are only allowed if they are “in common use” and “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

“Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939,” wrote Scalia.

This was enacted because criminals used machine guns during the Prohibition Era. Congress then decided to ban the possession of any machine guns that hadn’t been lawfully possessed before 1986.

More recently, there was a 2023 Assault Weapons ban that Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein introduced. Despite gun safety advocates’ hopes for this ban, it also ended up going nowhere.

“It gives lower court judges the ability to pick and choose the historical record in a way that they think the Second Amendment should be read,” Charles told the Associated Press.

The Supreme Court has a Republican majority, which seems to have been followed in the lower courts, especially in this case. It also shows how the high court has expanded gun rights, with this potentially having broader implications for future cases.

In the United States v. Rahimi case, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to uphold gun restrictions on those with restraining orders for domestic violence. This suggests that the court might go against the district court’s decision.

Gun rights advocates in the United States have been pushing a multitude of cases to try to broaden the right of Americans to own firearms in the wake of the Bruen decision.

“As far as I know, this is the first time in American history that a machine gun ban has been found unconstitutional in its application,” Ruben told the AP.