§922. Unlawful acts
(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to-
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Recently in the case USA v Tamori Morgan in the US District Court, it seems that Section 922 (o) might no longer be in force. Maybe, eventually. Or not.
https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35
The motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The
motion to dismiss on Commerce Clause grounds (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
https://www.news2a.com/national/us-district-court-judge-defends-machine-gun-possession/
In a case known as US v. Morgan, Tamori Morgan was charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He possessed an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 and a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a firearm to fire as an automatic weapon.
This court decision is likely the first of its kind, and could pave the way for a brand-new flavor of litigation as gun rights groups capitalize on the significance of the ruling and run with it in related litigation. It could also be overturned by another court that digs up archaic analogues that ‘satisfies the state’s burden’ as required in Bruen.
