BRUEN IS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING!

BRUEN IS THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING!

BRUEN is the gift that keeps on giving! You may have already seen IFC’s coverage about the ruling by the U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes out of Wichita that dismissed machine gun charges in US v Tamori Morgan. This is a monster case using Bruen, Rahimi, and now Morgan, regarding the NFA. Our fellow BOD member and past Chairman Michael Ware covers it in a detailed video here.

Second Amendment to the US Constitution text on parchment paper

SCOTUS ruled in the Bruen Case that all courts are now required to follow the historical analog that use historical precedents from the time of our nation’s founding, and not some made-up needs balancing test. That’s exactly what Judge Broomes did in the Morgan. I’ll summarize it here directly from his ruling:

“Under the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008). To keep arms means, simply, to possess arms. Id. at 583. If the plain text of the Second Amendment applies to a defendant’s conduct, the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical firearm regulation tradition. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). This standard requires a “historical analogue” between the modern regulation and historical regulations, not a “historical twin.” United States v. Rahimi,”

Judge Broomes concludes with this:

“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion. In Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), the Tenth Circuit side-stepped the Bruen analysis in a challenge to the prohibition against felons possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), concluding that Bruen did not abrogate the Tenth Circuit’s prior decision, United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10 th Cir. 2009), which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in the face of a Second Amendment challenge.. Vincent, 80 F.4th at 1202.

 

Nevertheless, just last month the Supreme Court vacated Vincent and remanded it for further consideration in light of Rahimi. Vincent v. Garland, No. 23-683, 2024 WL 3259668 (U.S. July 2, 2024). The court interprets that as indicating that the Supreme Court means what it says: “The constitutionality of laws regulating the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment must be evaluated under the Bruen framework.”

REACTIONS

I love what Jeff Charles pointed out in his RedState.com column on August 24, 2024. This ruling set off the anti-gun dangerous quacks in an amazing fashion;

Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, a leading anti-gun organization, criticized Broomes’ decision, saying it is “appalling that the District Court would so brazenly put the deadly agenda of the gun lobby over the safety of Kansans.”

 

“Machine guns – guns capable of automatic firing – have been tightly regulated under federal law since the 1930s. The laws banning them are not only constitutional but crucial to public safety. These weapons of war, capable of causing irreparable harm to countless innocent people, have no place in our communities,” she added.

Of course, Ms. Carter could not explain a reasoned legal objection to the ruling, only an emotional response. 

VOTE!

If you want to keep racking up these court victories we need to boot out the Obama/Biden/Harris regime. We as 2A advocates need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November. Are you registered to vote?

Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.

Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.

Dave Funk
Member, Board of Directors
Iowa Firearms Coalition