Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional: United States v. Miller
February 1, 2013 in Guns
One of the guys I subscribe to on Youtube put out this video yesterday.
He brought up United States v. Miller, A case I have never heard of.
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) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today’s Internal Revenue Service), with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, “The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, ‘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.’” Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.
Basically the US Supreme Court cited that Miller could not own the short barrel shotgun because it was not a weapon that was used by the Militia or military of the time.
This decision could nullify the Feistein AWB bill before it can even get started because most of the weapons they seek to ban are non-NFA versions of Military style firearms. Since the term Militia applies to men ages 18 – 45 it would seem that they alone could own those types of firearms. However when you throw the District of Columbia v. Heller Case in there, Now you have the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.
Looks like there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
But then again when have these politicians cared about the Constitution as of late?