United States v. Morgan, 150 F.4th 1339

In October 2022 police found an Anderson AM-15 machinegun, a .357 Glock, and a Glock "switch" on Tamori Morgan; a Snapchat video showed Morgan firing a Glock with the switch attached.
Morgan was indicted for two counts of unlawful possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (AM-15 and the conversion device).
Morgan moved to dismiss on an as-applied Second Amendment challenge; the district court granted dismissal, holding the seized items were bearable arms covered by the Second Amendment.
The Government appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed under Bruen’s two-step (text then history) framework as refined by RMGO.
The Tenth Circuit held Morgan failed at Bruen step one to show machineguns are arms "in common use" for self-defense and reversed the district court, remanding for further proceedings.
The opinion emphasized statutory background (§ 922(o)’s post‑1986 ban except pre‑1986 registered firearms), prior machinegun regulation (NFA 1934), and evidence that machineguns are primarily associated with unlawful uses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are machineguns "arms" in common use for self‑defense (Bruen step one)?	Morgan: his AM‑15 and Glock switch are bearable arms used for self‑defense.	Gov: machineguns are not commonly used by law‑abiding citizens for self‑defense; mainly used unlawfully.	Court: Morgan failed to show common use; Bruen step one not met; § 922(o) constitutional as applied.
Is § 922(o) consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation (Bruen step two)?	Morgan: Gov cannot show a historical tradition of banning mere possession.	Gov: Longstanding federal and state regulation (NFA 1934, 1986 Act, many state laws) shows tradition of restricting machineguns.	Court: Did not resolve step two because step one failed; noted Heller dicta and legislative history support regulation.
Did the district court properly dismiss the indictment?	Morgan: dismissal proper after finding Second Amendment coverage.	Gov: statute presumptively constitutional; dismissal erroneous.	Court: Reversed dismissal and remanded.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense; protections limited to weapons "in common use")
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (text‑and‑history framework for Second Amendment challenges)
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 121 F.4th 96 (10th Cir. 2024) (applies Bruen; common‑use inquiry framework)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (reiterates Second Amendment is not unlimited)
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (historical reference on militia‑related arms and limits)
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) (observes machineguns used principally by criminals)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (classifies machineguns among dangerous weapons warranting regulation)
United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (recognizes the immense danger posed by machineguns)
Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024) (machineguns characterized as ‘‘most useful in military service’’ and regulable)