United States v. Miller

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = United States v. Miller
ArgueDate = March 30
ArgueYear = 1939
DecideDate = May 15
DecideYear = 1939
FullName = United States v. Jack Miller, et al.
USVol = 307
USPage = 174
Citation = 59 S. Ct. 816; 83 L. Ed. 1206; 39-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9513; 22 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 331; 1939-1 C.B. 373; 1939 P.H. P5421
Prior = Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas
Subsequent =
Holding = The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SCOTUS = 1939
Majority = McReynolds
JoinMajority = Hughes, Butler, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter
NotParticipating = Douglas
LawsApplied = U.S. Const. amend. II

"United States v. Miller", 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was the first Supreme Court of the United States decision to directly address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. "Miller" is a controversial decision in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

Background

"United States v. Miller" involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). 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 Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service), [cite web |url=http://www.atf.gov/about/atfhistory.htm |title=ATF Online - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
accessdate=2007-12-27 |format= |work= ] 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.Fact|date=February 2008 The United States Department of the Treasury nonetheless claimed that it was a revenue-collecting measure.Fact|date=February 2008

The trial court

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 Miller and Layton 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 NFA. This was after the fact that the Treasury had "staked out" Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton's property in suspicion of moonshining. The Treasury, after a day-long stake, found that the distillery was not functional and had in fact been shut down for some time and had the boiler removed. The Treasury then found the sub-eighteen inch shot gun in Mr. Miller's truck on the seat. It is said that the Treasury, in fear of embarrassment for the distillery mishap, took the two men in on charges for not paying their taxes on the shortened shotgun.Fact|date=July 2008

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 defendant's argument at the trial court was reported (in the text of the Supreme Court opinion) to be as follows:

::The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'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.'

The trial court agreed, ruling that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. The trial court threw out the indictment. The United States Attorney, Clinton R. Barry, appealed to the Supreme court.

At the U.S. Supreme Court

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
#The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
#The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
#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.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, 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 stated:

: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.

Interpretations

Gun control advocates point out that for over six decades all the United States Circuit Courts, with very few exceptions, point to the precedence of the Miller case while rejecting legal challenges to federal firearm regulations. [cite book
author=Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard |title=The militia and the right to arms, or, How the second amendment fell silent |publisher=Duke University Press |location=Durham, N.C |year=2002 |pages= |isbn=0822330172 |oclc= |doi= ]

Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement that the judges were not made aware of this should be taken to mean exactly that.cite book |title=A Clash of Arms: The Great American Gun Debate |last=Carter-Yamauchi |first=Charlotte A. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1991 |publisher=Legislative Reference Bureau |location=Honolulu, HI |oclc=23525976 |pages=8–9 ] Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during WWI and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners. [cite web | url = http://books.google.com/books/pdf/America_s_Munitions_1917_1918.pdf?id=3XcMAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=w8t5El2sJuJ9d7ZJ1SMyazt61ac | title = America's Munitions, 1917-1918 | author = Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War | pages = 185-186 | year = 1919 | publisher = Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. | quote = When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted.Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners,these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting.]

Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings", which never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings. [cite web | url = http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm | title = The strange case of United States v. Miller | author = Michael S. Brown | date = August 6, 2001 | work = Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism]

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned "Miller" in only six subsequent cases: "Heller" (2008); "Prinz" (1997); "Lewis" (1980); "Adams" (1972); "Atlanta Motel" (1961); and "Konigsberg" (1961).

Below is a complete list of the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 "Miller" opinion:

;"District of Columbia v. Heller" (2008):"Miller" stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

;"Prinz v. United States" (1997) (opinion by Scalia) (Thomas, concurring):Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in "United States v. Miller", 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In "Miller", we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

;"Lewis v. United States" (1980); Footnote 8: (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); "United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines", [http://openjurist.org/504/f2d/1288/united-states-v-three-winchester-30-30-caliber-lever-action-carbines 504 F.2d 1288] , 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); "United States v. Johnson", [http://openjurist.org/497/f2d/548/united-states-v-johnson 497 F.2d 548] (CA4 1974); "Cody v. United States", [http://openjurist.org/460/f2d/34/cody-v-united-states 460 F.2d 34] (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

;"Adams v. Williams" (1972); (opinion by Rehnquist):The leading case is "United States v. Miller", 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

;"Atlanta Motel v. Unites States" (1961); Footnote 11:... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... "United States v. Miller", 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);

;"Konigsberg v. State Bar" (1961); Footnote 10:That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . ." But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: " [T] he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." "Gompers v. United States", 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see "United States v. Miller", 307 U.S. 174.

ee also

*Firearm case law
*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 307

References

Further reading

*cite book |title=Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment |last=Cottrol |first=R. J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1994 |publisher=Garland Publishing, Inc. |location=New York |isbn=0815316666 |pages=
*cite book |chapter=Gun Owners' Rights |title=The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom |last=Levy |first=Robert A. |authorlink=Robert A. Levy |coauthors=Mellor, William H. |year=2008 |publisher=Sentinel |location=New York |isbn=9781595230508 |pages=107–126
*cite journal |last=Van Alstyne |first=William |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1994 |month= |title=The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms |journal=Duke Law Journal |volume=43 |issue=6 |pages=1236–1255 |doi=10.2307/1372856 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

*caselaw source
case="United States v. Miller", 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./307/174/
findlaw=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174