Miller decision: military or civilian?

[Coyote33]

Didn't the "Miller case" from the 1930's say that a sawed-off shotgun was illegal because it served no military purpose?

So, from that, we are to deduct that we can only own arms which have a military purpose, right?

Then how come we get ads like these?
FNH USA - Print Ads

Why the AR15 but not the M16?

What happened here? Somebody miss the memo?

 

[Dench]

the military does use SBS's although not to commonly.
the only weapons that are commonly used that are made by FN are the M16/M4/M249/M240

 

[jcr]

Didn't the "Miller case" from the 1930's say that a sawed-off shotgun was illegal because it served no military purpose?

No, it didn't say that.

They said that they couldn't "take judicial notice" nor had any evidence presented on any connection to militia. Judicial notice is a legal term of art. And there was no evidence because the court below asserted, ipse dixit, that the 2nd Amendment was violated by the NFA34 when it sustained the demurrer that was filed by Miller's lawyer.

Had a hearing been held below that provided such evidence the SCOTUS might have rulled differently -- we don't know.

 

[drgrant]

US v. Miller is crap. It's a classic example of SCOTUS having made a decision without actually deciding anything.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

US v. Miller is a travesty. Miller's lawyer was not in court to argue the case. This is not what you want creating precedent.

 

[Coyote33]

... "take judicial notice"... Judicial notice is a legal term of art. ...asserted, ipse dixit, ...sustained the demurrer....

Where can I get the secret decoder ring for these?

 

[jcr]

Where can I get the secret decoder ring for these?

Law School.

 

[Amicus]

Law School.

In a pinch you can try Black's Law Dictionary. Let's not be too arcane.

 

[Coyote33]

So, are we or are we not supposed to be able to use sawed off shotguns? Why or why not? What about guns which have a military purpose? What exactly did the Miller decision say pertaining to the above? Do the two things I mentioned contradict each other or not? I am a bit confused on this. Thanks. (ie:back on topic, I guess)

 

[terraformer]

Just looking over the OP and I notice the crux of the question. If you notice the built for them featured is nothing like what they are building for us. So I am not sure this is making your point. However, I will go back to what I said before. Miller was an abortion of justice and should be thrown out into the trash heap. Read up on Miller on the net. It is disgusting what was allowed to happen in that case.

 

[mikem317]

So, are we or are we not supposed to be able to use sawed off shotguns? Why or why not? What about guns which have a military purpose? What exactly did the Miller decision say pertaining to the above? Do the two things I mentioned contradict each other or not? I am a bit confused on this. Thanks. (ie:back on topic, I guess)

Of course private individuals ought to be able to keep and bear fully automatic weapons. This is exactly what 2A is about - As the ultimate means to vacate a tyrannical and oppressive regime that is able to take root in our government.

Jury nullification is a more peaceable means, but when that doesn't work...

 

[Jaxon]

So, are we or are we not supposed to be able to use sawed off shotguns?

Very little legal purpose for a sawed off, other than home defense (maybe) and stakeouts.

 

[terraformer]

Very little legal purpose for a sawed off, other than home defense (maybe) and stakeouts.

sawed off, or short barrel? Because the two aren't interchangeable in my mind.
And I would say home defense is a very good reason. Frankly, for many in MA the only thing they can defend is themselves in their home.

 

[Jaxon]

sawed off, or short barrel? Because the two aren't interchangeable in my mind.
And I would say home defense is a very good reason. Frankly, for many in MA the only thing they can defend is themselves in their home.

I was commenting on the item in question, but I think they're kinda the same, less the actual process.

 

[Coyote33]

Very little legal purpose for a sawed off, other than home defense (maybe) and stakeouts.

This is what I'm asking about. The legal part. What did Miller decide exactly? I AM trying to do some "Internet research". I am starting here on NES.

I think you all know what I'm trying to get at, but are trying to get your own opinions in on the side angles.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

"United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service),[1] with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm is ever sold."

 

[Jaxon]

This is what I'm asking about. The legal part. What did Miller decide exactly? I AM trying to do some "Internet research". I am starting here on NES.

I think you all know what I'm trying to get at, but are trying to get your own opinions in on the side angles.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

So, what's the question then?

 

[Coyote33]

What did "the Miller decision" decide, exactly? I think you and everyone else knows what I'm getting at, but are just being difficult.

 

[KMaurer]

The whole idea that the Miller decision actually decided anything is pretty silly when you get right down to it. The government argued that the only guns that were protected by the amendment were those actually being used by state militias, i.e., a purely collective right. The Court dismissed that argument, though you couldn't tell by reading subsequent lower court decisions or listening to VPC and the other professional hoplophobes. Beyond that, they simply noted that arms had to have some reasonable sort of military use in order to be covered. (In other words, any arms that might only be useful for hunting or competition aren't covered by the amendment, i.e., the exact opposite of the line espoused by the MSM and other "reasonable" parties.) Since there was no record of any evidence or argument before the lower court regarding a short barrel shotgun's potential military usefulness, the case was returned to the lower court to address this question. Had Miller not turned up dead, it's almost certain that the government would have offered him the same sort of sweetheart deal the made with Layton in order to avoid a ruling that would have essentially overturned the National Firearms Act.

Ken

 

[theGringo]

Where can I get the secret decoder ring for these?

I think I can help out with this:

And there was no evidence because the court below asserted, ipse dixit, that the 2nd Amendment was violated by the NFA34 when it sustained the demurrer that was filed by Miller's lawyer.

In this instance, the term "ipse dixit" is Latin for "easy does it". Don't confuse this usage with the southern understanding of the term, which is considered to be "okee dokee".

The term "demurrer" refers to a device for removing bumpy bits from machined metal surfaces. It's relevance to the Miller case has long been debated, as the lawyer clearly had a file available.

 

[RKG]

1) After Heller, there is no point in continuing the otherwise endless debate of exactly what Miller stood for; today it has no precedential significance.

2) "Ipse dixit" refers to a statement who mere articulation is the only basis for offering it as truth. Rejecting an argument as ipse dixit is legalese for "saying it doesn't make it so."

3) A demurrer was a pre-Rules of Civil Procedure motion to dismiss an action on the ground that the plaintiff loses even if what he alleges is true. It is legalese for "So what?"

 

[Coyote33]

1) After Heller, there is no point in continuing the otherwise endless debate of exactly what Miller stood for; today it has no precedential significance...."

So, what are you saying, and what does this mean with regards to civilian ownership of an M16, for example.

 

[RKG]

So, what are you saying, and what does this mean with regards to civilian ownership of an M16, for example.

1) I am saying:

A) I'm not sure what Miller held;

B) I am reasonably certain that no one else knows what Miller held; and

C) After Heller, it doesn't matter what Miller held or did not hold because Heller supercedes it.

One could have a lengthy debate about which is better, Beta or VHS, but why bother?

2) Miller says nothing about M16s. Neither does Heller.

3) Prior to the 1986 (or thereabouts) amendments, it is unlikely that the 2d Amendment is offended by the National Firearms Act, because that statute did not ban ownership of full-auto weapons; it just taxed them and most likely raised no more of a constitutional issue than paying a sales tax on gun purchases. The question of whether the 2d Amendment is offended by the subsequent "no transfer" NFA amendment is interesting, and I fervently hope no one on "our" side raises it in the near term.