Gun Laws And 2a
Tenth Circuit Reinstates Federal Machine Gun Ban, Citing ‘Common Use’ Limits
Appeals panel reverses district court, holds federal machine gun prohibition remains constitutional after Bruen
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Denver, CO
A three-judge panel of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated charges against a Kansas defendant and reaffirmed the federal prohibition on possessing machine guns, reversing a district court ruling that had deemed the ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In United States v. Morgan, the panel concluded that fully automatic weapons are not 'arms' in common use for lawful self-defense, a threshold articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller and reaffirmed by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The district court had dismissed the indictment after determining the government failed to show a sufficiently close historical analogue for the prohibition. The appellate court disagreed, citing Congresss long regulatory history beginning with the 1934 National Firearms Act and Hellers common-use test. Judge Scott Matheson, writing for the panel, underscored that evidence shows machine guns are not commonly used for lawful self-defense and are primarily associated with criminal activity or militaristic contexts. This conclusion supported the constitutionality of the 1986 federal ban on new civilian possession of machine guns. The ruling sends the case back to the district court, reviving the indictment for illegal possession of a machine gun and a conversion device often referred to as a 'Glock switch.' This decision narrows the uncertainty introduced by the Supreme Courts Bruen decision, which emphasized a historical-tradition test for evaluating modern gun laws. Since Bruen, lower courts have grappled with how to apply historical analogues to modern firearms and accessories. The 10th Circuits approach highlights how appellate courts may rely on Hellers 'common use' standard as a limiting principle, particularly when historical examples are contested or difficult to establish. By grounding its reasoning in both Heller and a long history of federal machine gun regulation, the court signaled that highly regulated weapons with limited self-defense utility will remain outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. For gun owners, the practical impact of the decision is continuity. The longstanding federal framework regulating machine guns remains intact across the 10th Circuit, covering states such as Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. While this outcome does not alter existing ownership rules, it provides legal clarity at a time when challenges to federal firearms statutes have multiplied in the wake of Bruen. For litigators and advocacy groups, the opinion represents an important precedent, showing that appellate courts are willing to preserve existing restrictions when weapons are viewed as outside the mainstream of lawful defensive use. The decision also contributes to an emerging appellate consensus. Other circuits have faced similar challenges, and many appear inclined to treat machine guns as categorically different from semiautomatic rifles or handguns. These rulings suggest that while some laws affecting commonly owned firearms may be vulnerable under Bruen, highly restricted weapons such as fully automatic rifles or short-barreled shotguns remain defensible under Hellers framework. This distinction is likely to guide future litigation, particularly as courts confront cases involving firearm accessories like bump stocks, forced-reset triggers, or large-capacity magazines. Critics of the ruling argue that the line between semiautomatic and automatic weapons is becoming blurred, especially as illegal conversion devices such as Glock switches proliferate. Proponents of gun rights contend that the ruling reinforces a two-tiered framework that unduly limits ownership of certain arms. However, supporters of the decision emphasize that drawing clear boundaries around 'common use' is necessary to prevent destabilization of existing federal regulatory structures. Looking ahead, the case underscores how the interpretation of 'common use' will shape the trajectory of Second Amendment jurisprudence. If courts consistently hold that uncommon or crime-associated weapons do not fall within constitutional protection, challenges to federal restrictions on machine guns and related devices will face steep odds. Conversely, accessories or firearms that enjoy widespread civilian ownership may be more likely to gain traction in future lawsuits.