United States V. Miller

BACKGROUND

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were suspected bank robbers and moonshiners being watched by agents of the Department of the Treasury. On April 18, 1938 they were arrested for transporting an unlicensed Sawed-off Shotgun (defined as "having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length") across state lines while engaged in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre , the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, And Explosives (ATF), with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm is ever sold. This was widely interpreted as a prohibitive measure, as the $200 tax was levied upon items which at the time were relatively common and typically cost less than ten dollars. Treasury nonetheless claimed that it was a revenue-collecting measure.

This was a federal case and was therefore heard by the United States District Court For The Western District Of Arkansas . On January 3, 1939 U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed with the defense's claim that the NFA was intended to restrict the individual ownership and possession of arms, in conflict with the Second Amendment To The United States Constitution .

:The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved for the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ragon declared that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was therefore unconstitutional and void. U.S. Attorney Clinton R. Barry appealed to the Supreme Court.

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued three points:
#The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
#The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
#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.

Nobody appeared for the defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds , overruled the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that the NFA was not in conflict with the Second Amendment, writing:
: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.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court held:
:With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
:The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
The decision agreed that only military type arms are constitutionally protected, and stated ''"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."''

INTERPRETATIONS

Gun control advocates claim this case as a victory because it states that ownership of firearms may be restricted. Some further interpret the decision to mean one must be a member of a government-controlled militia in order to be protected, although the court did not state this.

Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because it states that ownership of military weapons is specifically protected. Furthermore they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been used in every US military action in history since their invention, and the statement that the judges were not made aware of this should be taken to mean exactly that. None of the Supreme Court justices involved had prior military experience. Since the defense did not appear, there was simply no way for them to know otherwise.

It is also frequently claimed that the U.S. Attorneys, through innuendo, effectively lied to the Supreme Court in their statement that the shotgun in question was never used by any militia. While technically and factually true, the statement was certainly irrelevant, as the deciding factor was appropriateness of the type of firearm, rather than the use of any particular firearm.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Although ''Miller'' is the only case directly relating to the Second Amendment, other cases have made tangential references to it. In particular '' Dred Scott V. Sandford '' plainly stated that if blacks were recognized as citizens they would have the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went" -- seemingly a frightening thought to slaveholders of the time.

SEE ALSO

Firearm Case Law

EXTERNAL LINK

Information About

United States V. Miller