The Peculiar Story of U.S. v. Miller

[Cap'n Mike]

This is a great read that Justice Scalia quoted as part of the Heller decision.

The Peculiar Story of U.S. v. Miller

http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Its amazing that the biggest Second Amendment case SCOTUS decided before Heller was only argued on the governments side, as the defendants attorney didn't show up, claiming he couldn't afford the trip.

The defendant Miller was also deceased at the time the ruling was announced because he was found dead of a gunshot wound, murdered by his own gang that he had testified against..

The case had a pre-planned outcome of legitimizing the National Firearm Act.

It also contradicts many of todays arguments for an assault weapon ban, as it determined that since a sawed off shotgun had no military purpose, it had no Second Amendment protections.
Only weapons of war have 2A protection.

 

[W.E.C]

Hope to see them publish the peculiar story of the death of Antonin Scalia,

And the rise and fall of the clinton crime syndicate.

 

[Glockster30]

This is a great read that Justice Scalia quoted as part of the Heller decision.

The Peculiar Story of U.S. v. Miller

http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Its amazing that the biggest Second Amendment case SCOTUS decided before Heller was only argued on the governments side, as the defendants attorney didn't show up, claiming he couldn't afford the trip.

The defendant Miller was also deceased at the time the ruling was announced because he was found dead of a gunshot wound, murdered by his own gang that he had testified against..

The case had a pre-planned outcome of legitimizing the National Firearm Act.

It also contradicts many of todays arguments for an assault weapon ban, as it determined that since a sawed off shotgun had no military purpose, it had no Second Amendment protections.
Only weapons of war have 2A protection.

That's why both sides (anti and pro gun) claimed a victory with the 1939 Miller Decision.

 

[MaverickNH]

There’s a lot of that going around ;-)

Meaning, it takes time for the alternative viewpoint (sometime called “the truth”) to work it’s way around even to those who look for it. Other than FOX, there is no other MSM source that will publish other than an anti-gun article.

 

[Coyote33]

... it determined that since a sawed off shotgun had no military purpose, it had no Second Amendment protections.
Only weapons of war have 2A protection.

Worth repeating!

 

[Dennis in MA]

I fully believe, after 50 years of gun-control-is-well-within-our-Constitutional-rights-as-a-nation mantra that federal courts are slowly realizing that SHALL, NOT, and INFRINGED mean very much what they said and that we should be moving in the other direction. Although getting another conservative member or two on the USSC would be awful nice.

Given that spec-ops use short-bbl'd rifles all the time, suddenly the "common use" theory is going right out the window.

Regardless of what's on CNN and in some p-hat protests, I'll be anxiously awaiting some really nice decisions in the next couple of years.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I fully believe, after 50 years of gun-control-is-well-within-our-Constitutional-rights-as-a-nation mantra that federal courts are slowly realizing that SHALL, NOT, and INFRINGED mean very much what they said and that we should be moving in the other direction. Although getting another conservative member or two on the USSC would be awful nice.

Given that spec-ops use short-bbl'd rifles all the time, suddenly the "common use" theory is going right out the window.

Regardless of what's on CNN and in some p-hat protests, I'll be anxiously awaiting some really nice decisions in the next couple of years.

That was discussed even at the time - we were already using short-barrelled shotguns by 1939, but nobody in that courtroom knew it, and now we have to live with it.

 

[KBCraig]

That was discussed even at the time - we were already using short-barrelled shotguns by 1939, but nobody in that courtroom knew it, and now we have to live with it.

I think they were all very aware of it -- that's why the ruling complained that they were "not in judicial notice..." that such arms were militarily useful.

 

[strangenh]

Miller is wrongly cited for many reasons. It really doesn't mean a lot, and it certainly doesn't mean what most anti-gun proponents think it means. Most con law profs 30 years back cited it as the only 2A post-14A case and said it didn't mean much, given the actual legal question before the court. If you actually read it - and most people don't - you can see why they'd say that.