The Tennessee case of Jaquan Bridges highlights the ongoing showdown between constitutional gun rights and federal gun control laws, with a dramatic decision that could reshape the landscape of the Second Amendment.
At a Glance
- The US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is set to rule on the applicability of the Second Amendment to fully automatic machines guns.
- Jaquan Bridges, who pleaded guilty to possessing a machine gun, argues for dismissal based on Second Amendment rights influenced by the Bruen decision.
- Judge John Fowlkes Jr. referenced the Heller decision, emphasizing weapons “in common use” limitations.
- This case could set a pivotal precedent for gun rights concerning historical analogues in gun restrictions.
Contesting the Machine Gun Ban
The federal courtroom drama in Tennessee sees Jaquan Bridges challenging his charges using the Second Amendment. Bridges, caught possessing a modified Glock machine gun after a police shootout, points to the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen ruling as grounds for dismissal. He argues that machine guns should be considered “arms” under the Second Amendment.
Bridges emphasizes that the 2022 Supreme Court ruling was a game-changer. However, U.S. District Judge John Fowlkes Jr. has already denied this dismissal plea. He rooted his decision in the 2008 Heller ruling, a cornerstone of gun rights discourse that restricts protection to weapons “in common use at the time.”
Legal Wranglings and Historical Precedents
Attorney Greg Gookin challenges the federal stance by suggesting that no historical parallels exist for machine guns, questioning their classification as “dangerous and unusual.” U.S. Circuit Judge John Nalbandian disputed the application of Hamblen after Bruen and questioned whether historical bans on entire weapon types hold relevance today.
“Hamblen doesn’t apply after Bruen.” – Judge John Nalbandian
On the opposing side, Assistant US Attorney Eileen Kuo firmly argues that machine guns are not within the scope of the Second Amendment due to their high destructiveness. She corroborated this with the 2009 Hamblen decision, leveraging Heller’s restrictions on “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Judge Nalbandian’s remarks unravel more complexities as he suggests the historical basis could insufficiently support a machine gun ban after the Bruen mantle.
Potential Precedent Shifting
The case’s ruling could rewrite gun rights history if the court favors Bridges, willingly rattling the foundation of federal gun control. This potential pivot would thrust forward the conversation concerning historical analogues and their validity in extending bans to modern firearms.
“Heller explained that the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment ‘were those ‘in common use at the time’ and we think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,”” – U.S. District Judge John Fowlkes Jr.
This outcome could also influence how courts nationally interpret the Second Amendment’s protection scope regarding modern weaponry. The interplay between the judiciary, historical analysis, and modern firearms regulation continues to captivate attention across the nation.
