United States v. Miller
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
United States v. Miller is the only Supreme Court of the United States decision to date (October 2004) to directly address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is a controversial decision in the ongoing gun control debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
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 Department of the Treasury, 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 of the Western District of Arkansas. On January 3 1939 US District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed with the defense's claim that the NFA was intended to restrict the individual ownership and posession 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. US 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:
Nobody appeared for the defendants.
On May 15 1939 the Supreme Court overruled the District Court decision, declaring that the NFA was not in conflict with the Second Amendment. 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. They 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, and "government-controlled" and "militia" are mutually exclusive terms.
Gun control opponents 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, 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 US Attorneys, through innuendo, effectively lied to the Supreme Court in their statement that the shotgun in question was never used by any militia. While 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 their would-be opressors.
- See also: Firearm case law
