A machine gun possession charge was dismissed by a district court in Kansas yesterday on Second Amendment grounds.
The court found that machine guns are clearly bearable arms, and in this case at least, the government failed to show a historical tradition to justify their ban.
The court found that machine guns are clearly bearable arms, and in this case at least, the government failed to show a historical tradition to justify their ban.
It looks like the government barely tried to meet its burden, relying on the Heller dicta instead.
This is exactly what happened in US v. Kittson, except that district court let the government win. We submitted an amicus brief on that one.
This is exactly what happened in US v. Kittson, except that district court let the government win. We submitted an amicus brief on that one.
Lots of excited responses, but everyone keep in mind that:
A. This is a district court ruling and can be appealed; and
B. Even this court didnt rule out that another case could go differently if the government actually tries to put forward historical analogues.
Personally, I dont think analogues exist.
A. This is a district court ruling and can be appealed; and
B. Even this court didnt rule out that another case could go differently if the government actually tries to put forward historical analogues.
Personally, I dont think analogues exist.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
