A federal judge in Mississippi recently ruled that the federal machine gun ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, a decision that may appear to be a significant victory for gun rights at first glance. However, upon closer examination, this ruling raises serious concerns about whether it is actually intended to strengthen gun rights—or to set a legal trap that could undermine the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and ultimately weaken Second Amendment protections.
The case in question involved a man charged with possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of federal law. U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed the charges, citing the Bruen precedent, which requires modern gun laws to be justified by historical analogues. The federal government argued that restrictions on “dangerous and unusual” weapons justified the ban, but Reeves noted that while machine guns are certainly dangerous, the government failed to prove they are “unusual,” given that over 750,000 legally registered machine guns exist in the United States.
While this may seem like a straightforward application of Bruen, there are troubling signs that the ruling may have a deeper, more strategic purpose. First, Judge Reeves framed his decision as an as-applied challenge, meaning it only applies to the defendant in the case and does not strike down the federal machine gun ban more broadly. This suggests a deliberate effort to limit the ruling’s immediate impact while still setting up a test case that higher courts could use to revisit Bruen.
More concerning is the judge’s clear hostility toward Bruen and originalist interpretations of the Second Amendment. In his ruling, Reeves criticized the Supreme Court’s reliance on historical tradition, calling the Bruen test “deeply concerning” and suggesting that it leaves too much discretion in the hands of judges. This, combined with his gratuitous inclusion of a list of high-profile mass shootings, indicates that he may be inviting appellate courts to reconsider the Bruen framework entirely.
If the federal government appeals this decision, it could lead to a dangerous outcome where higher courts—perhaps even the Supreme Court—use this case to carve out exceptions to Bruen or justify upholding other gun control laws. This is particularly troubling given that anti-gun activists and Democratic lawmakers are already looking for ways to push back against the Bruen decision, which has been used to strike down unconstitutional gun laws across the country.
Historically, courts have used this kind of incremental approach to erode Second Amendment rights. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was justified as a tax measure, only later to be used as a de facto gun ban on certain types of firearms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 further restricted gun ownership, and subsequent laws have steadily chipped away at gun rights through bureaucratic rulemaking and judicial reinterpretation. If courts use this machine gun ruling as an opportunity to dilute Bruen, it could have long-term consequences for all forms of gun ownership in America.
While this ruling may seem like a win for gun owners on the surface, it is essential to remain cautious. The legal system is often used strategically, and anti-gun judges and policymakers rarely make decisions without considering their broader impact. If this case moves up through the courts, Second Amendment advocates must be prepared to fight not just to preserve Bruen, but to ensure that this ruling does not become the vehicle for a judicial rollback of hard-won gun rights victories.
Rather than celebrating prematurely, gun owners must recognize the broader legal and political battle at play. The fight for the right to keep and bear arms is not just about winning individual cases but ensuring that the entire legal framework protecting the Second Amendment remains intact.
Leave a Reply