United States v. Miller
307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Second Amendment does not protect the possession of a firearm unless it has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The federal government can regulate firearms that are not ordinary military equipment and whose use could not contribute to the common defense.
Facts:
- The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration and taxation of certain firearms, including shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long.
- Jack Miller and Frank Layton transported a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches.
- The transportation occurred in interstate commerce, moving from Claremore, Oklahoma, to Siloam Springs, Arkansas.
- Miller and Layton failed to register the firearm with the federal government as required by the Act.
- Miller and Layton did not possess a stamp-affixed written order for the firearm, which would indicate that the required tax had been paid.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged by indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas with violating the National Firearms Act.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment, arguing that the Act violated the Second Amendment.
- The District Court sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment, agreeing that the relevant section of the Act was unconstitutional.
- The United States government, as the prosecutor, made a direct appeal of the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Firearms Act, which regulates the interstate transportation of unregistered short-barreled shotguns, violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McReynolds
No, the National Firearms Act does not violate the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in light of its purpose, which is to ensure the effectiveness of the state militia. The historical context of the Amendment indicates it was meant to protect the right of citizens to possess weapons of the kind in common use for military purposes, as they were expected to supply their own arms for militia service. In the absence of any evidence showing that a short-barreled shotgun has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, or is part of ordinary military equipment, the Court cannot conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
Analysis:
This decision established the dominant interpretation of the Second Amendment for nearly 70 years, viewing it as a collective right tied to militia service rather than an individual right for self-defense. By linking the right to bear arms directly to military utility, the Court provided a constitutional basis for significant federal firearms regulation. This precedent allowed for federal and state laws that restricted weapons not considered suitable for militia use, a framework that remained largely unchallenged at the Supreme Court level until the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, which reinterpreted the amendment as protecting an individual right.
