Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + +
United States v. Miller (view source)
Revision as of 18:58, January 18, 2008
, 18:58, January 18, 2008improved
In ''United States v. Miller'', 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. The Court held 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.
In ''United States v. Miller'', 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. The Court held 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]].
The facts of the case actually concerned the constitutionality of a federal tax on sawed-off shotguns, which in this case was a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length. The National Firearms Act, which was a revenue measure, was challenged by Miller as an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States and thus beyond congressional power under [[Commerce Clause]], and as a violation of the substantive right protected by the [[Second Amendment]]. The Court rejected both arguments, citing laws passed in the 1780s (just a few years prior to the adoption of the [[Second Amendment]] in [[Massachusetts]], [[New York]] and [[Virginia]] that emphasize the importance of militias.
Justice [[James McReynolds]] wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. Justice [[William O. Douglas]] has been newly appointed to the Court and did not participate in the decision.
The Court did not address this issue again prior to 2008.
The Court did not address this issue again prior to 2008.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]