It's kind of slow around the ODT today. This seemed like a good topic for discussion. I know that many firearms enthusiasts are familiar with this case and would love to hear your opinions as well as those that have never heard of it before.
Quick Summary: United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The defendants in the case were convicted of transporting a Stevens double barrel shotgun with a barrel of less than 18" from Oklahoma to Arkansas.
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.
While this, in and of itself is interesting what follows was a loss that many see as a win for the firearms community.
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.
The Supreme Court heard the case and on May 15, 1939 and handed down the following decision:In the opinion written by Justice McReynolds, The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established.
Justice McReynolds stated: "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."
So, based on this decision does this mean that it is unconstitutional to deny private citizens the right to own select-fire weapons as used in United States Military? By the way, short barreled shotguns were in use in the military during the time of the decision.....
Quick Summary: United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The defendants in the case were convicted of transporting a Stevens double barrel shotgun with a barrel of less than 18" from Oklahoma to Arkansas.
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.
While this, in and of itself is interesting what follows was a loss that many see as a win for the firearms community.
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.
The Supreme Court heard the case and on May 15, 1939 and handed down the following decision:In the opinion written by Justice McReynolds, The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established.
Justice McReynolds stated: "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."
So, based on this decision does this mean that it is unconstitutional to deny private citizens the right to own select-fire weapons as used in United States Military? By the way, short barreled shotguns were in use in the military during the time of the decision.....
