A Tennessee courtroom has become the battleground for a landmark Second Amendment case that could redefine gun rights across America as judges wrestle with whether machine guns deserve constitutional protection.
At a Glance
- The US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is deciding if the Second Amendment applies to fully automatic machine guns
- Defendant Jaquan Bridges challenged his machine gun possession charge citing the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen ruling
- The case hinges on whether machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” or protected “arms” under the Second Amendment
- Judge John Nalbandian questioned the historical basis for banning machine guns in America
- The ruling could significantly impact federal gun legislation and future firearms restrictions
Constitutional Showdown in Tennessee
The case of Jaquan Bridges has thrust the Western District of Tennessee into the national spotlight on gun rights. After being arrested following a shootout with police, Bridges pleaded guilty to possessing a machine gun – specifically a Glock pistol converted to fire automatically. However, his legal team subsequently moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the Second Amendment protects his right to possess such a weapon. The motion directly challenges federal restrictions on automatic weapons that have been in place for decades, potentially opening the door to a fundamental reassessment of gun legislation in America.
At the heart of Bridges’ defense is the landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. His attorneys contend that machine guns qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment’s protection and that the government lacks historical precedent for restricting them. This approach aligns with the Bruen decision’s requirement that modern gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation – a standard that has already begun reshaping gun laws across the country.
https://t.co/TKAtOqibgJ President Shaun Kranish was recently arrested in "constitution carry" Tennessee for open carry, revealing the anti-gun, anti-freedom nature of many state government employees. Shaun peacefully submitted to arrest, but wrote this stern open letter to the… pic.twitter.com/Wdlp15cZsi
— KeepAndBear.org 🔫 (@KeepAndBearOrg) November 23, 2024
Clashing Legal Interpretations
U.S. District Judge John Fowlkes Jr. initially denied Bridges’ motion to dismiss, pointing to established precedent regarding what weapons receive constitutional protection. In his reasoning, Judge Fowlkes referenced the pivotal 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established important parameters for Second Amendment rights.
The prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Eileen Kuo, has built its case around the 2009 ruling in Hamblen v. United States, which applied the Heller decision to deny Second Amendment protection specifically for machine guns. Kuo argued that modern automatic firearms are “highly destructive and specialized” weapons that fall outside constitutional protection. This interpretation has traditionally supported the 1986 federal prohibition on new machine guns for civilian possession.
Judicial Skepticism of Established Precedent
The case took an unexpected turn when Judge John Nalbandian expressed skepticism about the government’s arguments, suggesting that pre-Bruen precedents like Hamblen may no longer apply. This questioning of established case law signals the potential for significant shifts in Second Amendment interpretation. Judge Nalbandian specifically challenged the prosecution’s reliance on historical analogues.
Adding further weight to the defense’s position, Nalbandian directly stated, “Hamblen doesn’t apply after Bruen.” This questioning of established precedent potentially opens the door for a complete reevaluation of which weapons receive Second Amendment protection. Defense attorney Greg Gookin seized on this opening, arguing there are no valid historical analogues to machine guns that would justify their prohibition, and challenging the government to prove that such weapons are genuinely “dangerous and unusual” compared to other firearms.
Far-Reaching Implications for Gun Rights
The potential ramifications of this case extend far beyond Tennessee’s borders. Should the court rule in favor of Bridges, it could undermine decades of established firearms regulations and potentially invalidate the 1986 machine gun ban. Gun rights advocates are closely watching, as a favorable ruling would represent one of the most significant expansions of Second Amendment protections in modern history. The case could set the stage for challenges to numerous other firearm restrictions nationwide.
For law enforcement and gun control proponents, the case represents a concerning challenge to public safety measures. The prosecution has emphasized the destructive potential of automatic weapons and their historical regulation. However, the post-Bruen legal landscape has already shown courts are increasingly skeptical of gun restrictions lacking clear historical foundations, potentially making it more difficult to maintain even longstanding prohibitions on weapons deemed particularly dangerous.
