USA vs Miller

[JJVP]

On USA vs Miller in 1939 the government claimed that the 2nd Amendment only applied to types of weapons used by the militaty. Mr Miller was arrested for possessing and transporting a sawed-off shotgun, which unknown to the court, was actually used in the military.. The courts originally dismissed the charges, but an appeal reinstated them. It went to the Supreme Court.

"The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1- The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2- The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3- The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4- The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3]Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]"

See specially item 3 of the governments position. That is in clear contrast to current government position that claims that semi-automatic weapons only belong in the hands of the military or police, not citizens.

Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The US vs Miller decision was also quoted during the Heller case.

[hpcatx]

See specially item 3 of the governments position. That is in clear contrast to current government position that claims that semi-automatic weapons only belong in the hands of the military or police, not citizens.

Very interesting. Thanks for bringing this case to our attention.

I fear that we "can't win for losing" in the minds of the antis. If the argument levied that these are military weapons and not designed for civilian use is proven false, they'll switch to arguing that these are semi-autos and the military uses full autos based on your cited precedent.

I also have problems with arguments 1 and 2, but that should be the subject of another post... and would just be arguing against other precedent that, for better or worse, seems well established.

[mgood]

Yes, I've had anti-gunners use Miller as an argument against me. But I always read it the way you do, that it confirms the idea that military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

And yeah, short-barrelled shotguns were used by the U.S. military in the trench warfare of WWI and came to be known as "trench guns." They were certainly still in the inventory in WW2. (Miller was between the wars.) So the decision seems to be based on Miller's shotgun not being a military weapon, which it was. The court was ill-informed.

[JALLEN]

Don't rely on one side's arguments, read the entire decision, and the dissents. Understand what the actual decision really amounts to.

These things are often very subtle, and easily misunderestimated. People seize a few sentences they like, or dislike, and react to that. A lot of times, the holding is a procedural type thing with very little actual impact on substantive laws. Dismissing for lack of standing, or ripeness etc. Miller was an appeal following a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer was sustained. Heller is a much more comprehensive example of the interpretative process.

Depending on your purpose, there is little need to review the briefs of the litigants or amicus. The court's opinions normally discuss those points in accepting, rejecting or modifying those. Now, if you are a Court scholar, and there are those, the briefs, petitions and even transcripts of arguments can be revelatory.

[Heartland Patriot]

A LOT of firearms laws are based on suppositions that simply aren't true. My constant example is the part of the NFA of 1934 concerning barrel length. Yeah, it really matters if someone shoots up a place and kills a bunch of folks with a 15.99" barrel rifle instead of a 16" barrel rifle. That missing tiny fraction of barrel makes them SO much more "evil". Just STUPID.

Of course, the reality is that it matters only HOW the firearm is used and whether the use against other humans is JUSTIFIABLE (such as self-defense or defense of third party)...but that doesn't make for good fodder for the collectivists and do-gooders to fan the flames of gun-control among the ill-informed and ignorant.

[jimlongley]

There were several problems with the Miller decision.

Miller was dead by the time the decision was rendered.

Nobody ever presented Miller and Layton's side of the argument, so the decision was rendered based on the government's case alone, and that decision was much narrower than the anti-gun nuts ever present it as being.

If the other side had been presented it would have come to the court's notice that short barreled shotguns were used by both sides in the "Civil War", the Spanish American War, the "Banana Wars" and even to some extent in WWI, and therefore they could never have made the statement ""In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." possibly leading to a far different decision.

All of that of course is moot, being mere speculation, but it is true that "its use could contribute to the common defense." might very well be the argument that works in our favor, as our military obviously uses 30 round magazines and weapons with ALL of the single characteristics that DiFi wants to outlaw.

[cheezit]

theres also the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 from 1902. for some more reading

[Rex B]

I remember reading something on the Miller case in John Ross' book Unintended Consequences.

didn't know how much was fact, or literary fiction.

The legal discussion in UC is factual. Most of the first half of the book is history of gun laws, with a plot connecting them.

[n5wd]

And yeah, short-barrelled shotguns were used by the U.S. military in the trench warfare of WWI and came to be known as "trench guns." They were certainly still in the inventory in WW2. (Miller was between the wars.) So the decision seems to be based on Miller's shotgun not being a military weapon, which it was. The court was ill-informed.

I personally know that sawed-offs were certainly used during the Vietam conflict and it wouldn't surprise me to know that the guys and gals down range occasionally had them with them during the last ten years as well. If that's the only thing that needs proving, I'm sure someone has a photo or two that would render the argument moot. But, I suspect that won't be the final word.