It's kind of odd. If I read this correctly it is still illegal to own a machine gun, but machine guns are bearable arms and therefore legal under Heller.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.146873/gov.uscourts.ksd.146873.35.0.pdf
"Defendant Tamori Morgan is charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Defendant is charged with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 caliber machinegun and a machinegun conversion device. It was established at the hearing that the conversion device is a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a Glock, model 33, .357 SIG caliber firearm to fire as an automatic weapon."
"The government fails to address these facts, and thus fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that Case 6:23-cr-10047-JWB Document 35 Filed 08/21/24 Page 8 of 10possession of the types of weapons at issue in this case are lawfully prohibited under the Second Amendment. To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimito 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."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.146873/gov.uscourts.ksd.146873.35.0.pdf
"Defendant Tamori Morgan is charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Defendant is charged with possessing an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 caliber machinegun and a machinegun conversion device. It was established at the hearing that the conversion device is a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a Glock, model 33, .357 SIG caliber firearm to fire as an automatic weapon."
"The government fails to address these facts, and thus fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that Case 6:23-cr-10047-JWB Document 35 Filed 08/21/24 Page 8 of 10possession of the types of weapons at issue in this case are lawfully prohibited under the Second Amendment. To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimito 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."
Oh, y’all are talking about guns, my mistake.
