A brief History of US vs Miller

ernest2

New member
Very briefly,Jack Miller was a moon shiner who had
a dummy still set up where he could bring moon shine supplies without the batf finding the real still. Sure enough, BATF tried to bust him ,but the rusted out still at that location had been non functional junk for years.

So there was no still here,a bad bust.

BATF took Miller's stevens savage side by side double barrel 12 gague shotgun , worth
about $5.oo in 1938, and arrested Miller on violation of the National firearms act of 1934; Because Miller has not paid the US Treasury a $200.oo tax & registration fee on
the $5.oo , 16 &1/2 inch barreled shot gun.

The Batf did not have to go back enpty handed ,with yet more egg on its face, this time!
United States VS Miller, District Court, Western District of Arkansas,
Fort Smith Division; Judge Heartsil Ragon
Presiding.
In order to cut out 3 pages of print
I skip to the disposition of the case in lower court.

Mr. Defense Attorny Gutenson, the demurrer
you filed is accordingly sustained.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 violates the SecondAmmendment to the Constitution of the United States. Case dismissed. Mr Miller & Mr. Layton, you are free to go.

Now Jack Miller was a dirt poor moonshiner. He paid Attoury Gutenson only 26.oo, all the money Miller had.

Miller had won, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was an illegal law in voilation of the Second Ammendment of the Constitution.

But , a month later , the feds appealed the case to the US Supreeme Court in Washington Dc.

A week long seach could not find either Jack Miller or his associate Mr Layton , both of whom might possibly have been back up in the woods cooking up a new batch of shine . Any ways, no one could find them. Att. Gutensohn was unwilling to travel
at his own expense from Arkansas to Washington DC , there to defend a missing man for FREE and did not bother to file a typed brief with the Supreme Court, again, for
free.


Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Mc Reynolds presiding.
For the United States, Att. Gordon Dean.
There was no legal represention for Miller,
Miller himself was missing and never again found by LEO's.No briefs for the defense were ever filed.
An opponent to the govt's challenge
about to be made would have doomed Dean's argument. Without opposition, there was a chance Dean could squeak by.All it would take Dean was some creative manipulation of the facts & some monumental omissions.

Yes ,your Honor. If it please the Court,the District Court's prior dismissal of
this case & the ruling that the National Firearms Act is in contravention to our
Constitution has no rational basis in law.
The NFA levies a tax on the intrastate commerce in sawed off shot guns, & affixes a Fed. stamp to the order as proof that the tax has been paid. THE WEAPON THAT --Mr Miller & Layton transported
in intra state commerce,a double barreled Stevens 12 ga.shot gun having a barrel length of less than 18 inches AND BEARING SERIAL #
76230, is not issued to any military entity
anywhere in our country. TO SAY THAT THIS WEAPON IS PART OF ANY WELL REGULATED MILITIA IS UTTER NONSENCE.

(Fed. prosecuting Att. Dean had just streched the truth as far as he ever had in his professional life).

[Short barrelled shot guns has been used in every military engagement in the past 50 years, BUT WHAT DEAN ACTUALLY HAD SAID
WAS: that Serial # 76230 was not government issue, so that it wasn't really a lie.

Dean also dreaded the question of how a $200.oo tax on a $5.oo gun could be anything but an infringement on the right to keep the weapon. The tax was , after all, 40 times the
cost of the weapon and carried a penality
of both a 5,000.oo fine and a 5 year jail sentence.

Because of Judges with no military or
firearms experience and no opposition legal representation, these questions were neither asked or even considered.

Without opposing counsel, the Court was never told that shotguns with barrells less than 18 inches were used in the military. The Court was never informed that the National Firearms Act of 1934 applied to automaic weapons that were obviously military issue, which would have killed the government's arguement right there. Finally, no one had pointed out , as had District Court Judge
Heartsil Ragon, that militia weapons were ,by defination,the personal arms of the private citizenry, and therefore weather or not a particular weapon was issued to army troops
was completely irrevelant.

The Decision:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrell of less that 18 inches of
length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia ,we can not say that the Second Ammendment guarantees the right to keep & 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secomd Ammendment is a recognation of the danger of standing armies. Its purpose is to reconize that every citizen has the right
to keep and bear THE SAME TYPE OF BASIC ARMS AS A SOLDIER IN AMODERN MILITARY.

A malitia embodies all able bodied men over the age of 16. Therefore, a militia will always outnumber a standing army by at least 20 to 1.

If the milita is armed with weapons similar to those used ny the individuals
comprising the standing army,it will be impossible for that standing armt to inflict the will of a tyrannical government upon the people.

The Second Ammendment is the guarantee
behind all the other articles in the Bill of Rights. It is the ultimate guarantee that the citizens of the United States will remain free.

GUN CONTROL ,ON THE OTHER HAND, EMPOWERS SLAVERY , by voiding our ultimate guaranttee of freedom.

Source material: The Book by John Ross
"Unintended Consequences" 1996



------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Moved to Legal/Political

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Is there a URL which has the oral argument(s) which were given to the Court re: US v Miller?

I bet that would make interesting reading.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Rick..

I have a bunch of Miller stuff on my website

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
from what i have read
Mr. Ross kinda embelished the facts to make his story more interesting

dZ
 
Ross did make them more interesting, but he missed one very important part of the Miller case. Miller did not disappear. He was murdered prior to the SC hearing. As to Loyalton (sp) he dissapeared to parts unknown. I've always wondered if it was not the feds who nixed Miller.

All of this is beside the point. My concern is how corrupt our court system is now. And I think the SC is just as bad as the lower courts by their refusal to address the issue. Anyone who says that the second does not mean what it quite clearly says, is either lying or has been brainwashed. I'm now to the point that I won't even debate the issue any more. Just that plain and simple.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Naw, it was probably another moonshiner who bagged Miller.

The tragic outcome is that a major right was eroded for want of representation.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
A good rundown, but you missed something important- the court also said something to the effect of (paraphrase) "The ammendment was intended to assure the effectiveness of state militias and must be interepreted with that end in sight."

Now, if that statement is acceptable, then old ladies, not being a member of the militia by pretty much anyone's definition, do not have right to own guns. The court interpreted the militia clause as a limitation of the right, not as an explaination. I find that extremely unacceptable. It's NOT just about how shotguns are militia weapons, its about whether person and weapons that are plainly not a part of anyone's militia are protected- such as for self-defense. I, of course, think that the militia clause is not a limitation. However, we can't just argue for militia weapons, and say all us able-bodied men are in the militia- we must prove that the militia clause gives the right to all people- militia members and non members- and all firearms- militarily useful or not.
 
General Principles of Constitutional Law" by Thomas Cooley. This was the major text used by law schools from the last half of the 1800s into the early 1900.


Said Cooley, "The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible."

"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon...If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet in voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."

There are Constitutional commentators out there, ladies and gentlemen. From Justice Jay to Justice Story to Judge Cooley, from St. George Tucker to Tench Coxe. Read them. Know them. They shall lead the way.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Anyway you look at it Miller was a bad decision. Basically the court dodged the whole issue. They could have easily asked in a military expert to settle the issue of whether or not a shotgun with less than an 18" barrel had any military use. The Judges didn't do their job.

Second, if we are to take Miller seriously does it mean that if I have an A2 assault rifle I can cite Miller and get any unconstitutional prosecution tossed? Heck the military uses A2's they must be good for militia use. That's the problem with the Miller decision, almost every sort of firearm has been used in combat. The court's decision that they couldn't decide whether a short barreled shotgun could be used to kill someone in defense of the country is defenseless!
 
Valdez - What's an A2?

On Valdez's question 2, which is basically "how do we define what constitutes arms covered under the 2nd?", I once I saw a quote attributed to Pat Buchanen. He was asked this question. The answer was basically, "If you need a trailer hitch to move it around, maybe that's not covered by the 2nd" (!!). I'm not big on Pat for President, but Go, Pat!

Anyone have a reference on that one?
 
Checked out your link for millercomplete.txt
and got...

HTTP/1.0 404 Object Not Found

Any help? I am really interested in those oral arguments.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Oops...sorry forgot it was in a sub-dir
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/histdoc/millercomplete.txt

It may not be what you are looking.
Here is the Table of contents:


COURT OPINION AND DOCUMENTS

UNITED STATES vs MILLER

COURT OPINION & DOCUMENTS

compiled and transcribed by

Patrick L. Aultice

Table of Contents

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CHARGE BEFORE COMMISSIONER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

MINUTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RECOGNIZANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

AFFIDAVIT OF SURETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

INDICTMENT, JUNE 2, 1938. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

DEMURRER TO INDICTMENT, JUNE 11, 1938 . . . . . . . . . . 11

MEMO OPINION, JUNE 11, 1938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

INDICTMENT, SEPTEMBER 21, 1938. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

DEMURRER TO INDICTMENT, JANUARY 3, 1939 . . . . . . . . . 16

MEMO OPINION, JANUARY 3, 1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

PETITION FOR APPEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

NOTICE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

PRAECIPE FOR TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

BRIEF FILED BY THE UNITED STATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

MANDATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

PROBATION DOCUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

JUSTICE JAMES CLARK McREYNOLDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

VIEWPOINT REGARDING UNITED STATES vs MILLER . . . . . . . 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Also: http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+f_second+amendment!3A]/doc/{t19028}/hit_headings/words=4/pageitems={body}?


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited December 22, 1999).]
 
This reply is to Valdez and BTR. First to Valdez. The judges did not court did not dodge the issue. If the litigant or their counsel does not present evidence what are the judges to do, go out and present the evidence for them? Judges in our system do not find fact.

BTR: If you don't like the definition of militia in your state you should work to have it changed. Actually someone right now could challange any state's militia law as uncon as sex based discrimination and they would win.

Also I would ask who here feels that the 2nd amend applies to the states.
 
MOD,

I'm sorry you are wrong. It is not at all unusual for judges to appoint experts or legal counsel to represent the position of a defendant if the defendant is dead or otherwise unable to present his position.

It is inexcusible for the judges to claim that they couldn't determine that a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18" might be suitable for defense. Any idiot can recognize the utility of a short barrelled shotgun in trench type warfare.
 
I've never heard of a S.Ct. case where the justices have appointed someone to represent another's position. If you know of a case where this has been done please tell me. As for what idiots know, judges at the S.Ct. are supposed to hear facts not assume that they "know" something. If we relied upon them for what they or any idiot "know" why bother having a trial about anything?
 
Back
Top