United States Vs. Miller Case Study

United States v.
Miller
Kalyn Reading

The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller.
“On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce. Both Miller and Layton pleaded guilty, but Ragon refused to accept their plea and appointed Paul E. Gutensohn as counsel. The Fort Smith, Arkansas, Southwest American reported that "Jack Miller and Frank Layton

The Court’s decision of 15 May 1939 was unanimous. “However, Justice Douglas recused himself, most likely because he was appointed to the Court on 4 April 1939, and so had not heard oral arguments on 30 March. Justice James Clark McReynolds delivered the six-page decision. The first third contained almost the entire text of the indictment; the full text of the National Firearms Act; the claims by Miller and Layton to Judge Ragon that NFA ’34 was unconstitutional. They had explained that the National Firearm Act of ‘34 attempted to usurp police power reserved to the States by taxing items and also that the United States had the power to regulate the types of guns which they argued violated the Second Amendment. The court summarily dismissed – with a paragraph of case citations – "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States". According to The U.S. v Miller Case, Revisited the cases cited showed that Congress could impose taxes as it saw fit, if such taxes were meant to raise meaningful amounts of revenue, even if the States had the powers to regulate possession of or commerce in the items in question. Justice McReynolds then dealt with the remaining matter, the scope of the Second Amendment. In a single paragraph the Court narrowly defined the issue. The question turned on the nature of the short-barreled shotgun: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun

This case is also regularly cited in other Supreme Court cases and is often a deciding factor. It has been used in cases like Konigsberg v. State Bar “That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . ." But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, “However, compare the qualified language of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.” Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States