United States v. Miller
Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for transporting an unregistered short-barreled (sawed-off) shotgun across state lines, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Layton made a plea bargain, but Miller moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the National Firearms Act violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The District Court agreed with Miller and quashed his indictment, and this decision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Court.
In Miller, the Court sustained the statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns and reversed the ruling of the lower court. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that "[w]ith 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 with that end in view." The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Therefore, "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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. Certainly 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."
Crucial to understanding this ruling is the specific wording "in the absence of any evidence". Neither Miller, his co-defendent Frank Layton, nor their attorney, appeared before the court; the justice department attorneys presented their case without any opposition from the appellants. Lacking evidence, the court could not make any emphatic statements in their ruling. The court could not say that the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment, because no case was presented in support of that position.[5]
The case was remanded to the lower court for further consideration. However, as Miller was deceased by this time, no further action was taken, and the question of whether a short-barreled shotgun had actual military purpose was unresolved.
Supporters of the standard model read Miller to support the right of individuals to privately possess and bear their own firearms, while supporters of the States' right model read Miller as endorsing the view that the Second Amendment exists specifically to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia.
Bookmarks