I Just Re-Read U.S. vs. Miller

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanTheFarmer

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
392
Location
New Hampshire
Good Evening,

I've just re-read U.S. vs. Miller (1939) and a question popped into my head.

The gist of the decision seemed to me to be that the Feds could regulate short barreled shotguns and silencers (suppressors) because they were not commonly used military weapons. When duty called and the militia mustered, Average Joe was expected reach above his fireplace, grab his militarily useful weapon, and report to the town common. Because short barreled shotguns weren't useful for this task (according to the court) the Feds could regulate them, same deal for silencers. Now the tough part, what happened when Average Joe reached for his M1917 30 cal, water cooled, tripod mounted, machine gun? That seems pretty militarily useful. How did fully automatic weapons get under control of the Feds due to this decision?

In spite of my clearly incisive questions and impeccable reasoning, I am not a lawyer. What did I miss? I'm not debating the wisdom of the decision or the regulations that followed from it. I'm just trying to understand how we got from point A to point B.

Thanks.
 
Because in 1934, the registry was open to anyone...even convicted felons. The United States argued before the Court (successfully) that the NFA was a revenue measure rather than a ban.

Pay $200 per gun and go home with all the Tommy guns and Browning Automatic Rifles you want. And that's how it was until 1968.
 
200$ was more than a month's wages. The US also lied to the court in claiming short shotguns had no military use, when they were in service less than ten years earlier as trench guns. Miller was also dead, and not even his attorney was present to contest the US argument before SCOTUS. Miller's attorney had also not sought to appeal the lower ruling against his client, but that court was so proud of its decision that it was sent directly to SCOTUS for immediate action, who then accepted this very unusual case under unusual circumstances, and applied the lower ruling nationally until Heller. Somehow the Hughes Amendment still passed muster even before Heller essentially gutted Miller.

TCB
 
barnbwt said:
200$ was more than a month's wages. The US also lied to the court in claiming short shotguns had no military use, when they were in service less than ten years earlier as trench guns. Miller was also dead, and not even his attorney was present to contest the US argument before SCOTUS. Miller's attorney had also not sought to appeal the lower ruling against his client, but that court was so proud of its decision that it was sent directly to SCOTUS for immediate action, who then accepted this very unusual case under unusual circumstances, and applied the lower ruling nationally until Heller. Somehow the Hughes Amendment still passed muster even before Heller essentially gutted Miller.
Click to expand...

You have a few thing backwards regarding United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):
  • The District Court ruled in Miller's favor, quashing Miller's indictment and ruling that Section Eleven of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional.
  • The government appealed to the Supreme Court to defend the National Firearms Act against the District Court's decision in Miller's favor.
  • While Miller's attorney did not appear before the Supreme Court, he also did not even file a brief with the Court.
  • Miller was argued before the Supreme Court on March 30, 1939; Miller was murdered on April 3, 1939.
  • The Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision, effectively validating the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller is an excellent discussion of the Miller case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top