Talk:United States v. Miller

Italics
Why is advocates "italicised" (pardon my spelling, if I mispelled that) where it explains how each side took the case to support their side? I have little experience editing encyclopedias, but is there a reason behind that?

Background on this case
As I have indicated in another talk page, this matter came to the Supreme Court after a timely posed demurrer by one or both defendants at trial. Therefore, a likely explanation regarding the lack of evidence might be that no evidence to the aforementioned effect had even been presented at the trial -- the defendants' demurrer may have been sustained by the trial court before anybody could get around to presenting evidence. (For non-lawyers, what this basically means is that if the trial court threw out the case before the defendants had a chance to present "evidence" there obviously would have been no such "evidence" in the record on appeal for the Supreme Court to even talk about. In other words, this may have been a case where the defendants were "too successful," or their initial success at the trial court essentially may have backfired once the case was appealed.)

The Supreme Court hears and decides questions of law but does not normally decide questions of fact (i.e., does not normally hear "evidence"). Appeals courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court do look at "evidence" in certain technical ways, but not in all the same ways that a trial court looks at evidence. Generally, the Supreme Court and other appeals courts look only at evidence presented at the trial court proceeding.

If the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the firearm in the case was "ordinary military equipment" for purposes of the statute to be a question of fact, then the Court could easily have taken the lack of "facts" in the trial court's record as a lack of "evidence." By contast, if an appeals court such as the Supreme Court considers a particular question decided by a trial court to be a question of law, the court will have no problem re-examining that question.

The Court also noted that it could take no judicial notice that the weapon was part of ordinary military equipment. This seems to support the argument that the Court did indeed treat the question as a question of fact -- one requiring "evidence" to be presented at the trial court -- and apparently none was presented, because the defendants were successful in having the case thrown out first.

If you don't present "evidence" at trial, you are basically out of luck. Under our legal system, the Supreme Court and other appeals courts generally do not consider or look at "evidence" unless that evidence was at least presented at the trial court level. So, even if the defendants or their lawyers HAD shown up at the Supreme Court, any "evidence" they didn't try to put into the trial court record would generally not be regarded by the Supreme Court anyway. Yours, Famspear 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

True Lies
I removed the paragraph about the "frequent claim" that the government lied in stating that the shotgun in question was never used in connection with a militia. It is unsourced, and in any event a factually true statement made as part of a legal argument does not become a lie simply because the statement is (arguably) irrelevant. Bob92 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What people are saying is that the judge didn't know half-barelled shotguns was military arms. If he had knew it was used, in coherency with the rest of military arms that would have been ruled lawful to posses as well. This trial is a little bit hard for a layman to understand as the definition of a militia is anyone over 18 years of age. Hence anyone over 18 can posses military arms for their protection. Lord Metroid 13:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Metroid, the Supreme Court protected ownership of military weapons by those enrolled in militias. It wouldn't matter if the sawed-off shotgun really were a military weapon or if the court had known it, because there was no militia involved. The definition of militia is not "anyone over 18 years of age," as you say. The Constitution and the court define it very clearly as, among other things, "well-regulated" and organized, armed, and disciplined by Congress. The court wrote that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline'" -- that doesn't mean that everyone over 18 was a militiaman automatically because he turned 18, it meant that everyone over 18 was obligated to enroll in the militia and be subject to its discipline. Short answer: whatever the law is, the court in this case named two requirements, not one, for the enjoyment of the Second Amendment's protection: (1) a military-style weapon and (2) enrollment in a militia. Knowing the trivia of the military's use of sawed-off shotguns would not have changed the court's decision. --Yawnz1 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawnz, you are in need of a serious study of the origins and implementation of the Second Ammendment, the opinion of the framers, most notably the Federalist papers and subsequent interpretations. It would also be wise to study the underlying issue of Republicanism vs Liberalism at hand during the Revolutionary/Constitional era.  I recommend Gordon Wood, obviously.  Yes, citizens were expected to roll in the common defense.  As it was not just a right to bear arms for your defense(liberalism), it was a duty to own firearms, for the defense of the nation, internal and foreign, (republican), be well trained, get togethor in your community for drills, teach your children so they could enter the militia upon adulthood, etc.  This is reflected in the view of all the rights. It's not just a right to freedom of the press, it's a duty to be well informed and have access to all the information.


 * That being said, none of the framers were of the opinion that militia would be organized by Congress. Nor is there any credible academics that put forth such a view.  Anybody that does put such a view instantly loses their credibility.  It is akin to finding a credible source that the world is flat. The view of standing armies is well documented, as well as the view of the militia.


 * This is the logic which i find baffling: The court wrote that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable.  Seems to me that the court meant the militia was all males physically capable. Pretty straight forward.  Maybe the age requirement can be intrepretted under physically capable.  Certienly you can look at the U.S. code and its legal origins that states exactly what the court said, "All Able Bodies Males".  Chudogg (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether only military type arms are protected
An anonymous editor has inserted "The court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected." The only explanation was "rv vandalism".

I had removed the sentence, because the court did not actually say that. The article does quote what the court actually said. The sentence is inaccurate and misleading, and it just promotes someone's POV about how the court's opinion should be interpreted. Interpretation belongs in the following section, not the section on what the court actually said. Roger 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Miller has a case that supports Gun regulation
First line should be edited that Miller is a case that affirmed the right of the federal government to regulate firearm ownership, through NFA 1934. Nobody is argueing against that. Rather than the weak notion that both sides say its supports their side. Gun Rights supporters would hardly claim this case as a victory even if it did uphold the individual rights view, per se. And anti-gunners have to make some giants leaps in logic to make. Thus that sentence should be replaced and leave that dichotomy in the main page. Chudogg (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you say that it affirmed the power of the feds to tax the interstate transfer of firearms that have no military use. I think that the lead paragraph is just fine. Roger (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's silly to claim that pro-gun people cite Miller. They can cite it all they wish but it held against them. It's kind of like saying that the KKK cited Brown v. Board of Education for their view that Blacks are inferior. Even if it's true, it's nonsense.GreekParadise (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Precedent
The text re: Printz v. U.S. was partially incorrect; "the Court" did not state that, rather, Justice Thomas did in a concurring opinion. For those unfamiliar with legal terminology, a concurring opinion is one written by a justice who agrees with what the majority has held but would like to comment independently on the topic. This is a crucial distinction; had "the Court" written that line, its effect would be substantial, essentially knocking the collective right position in the Second Amendment debate out of the ball park at the Appellate level, demolishing the key cornerstone of the bulk of Circuit Courts' Second Amendment precedent, and more than likely would have been seen as an indication by the Court that it was willing to hear a Second Amendment challenge. That it was written instead by Thomas in a concurrence means that it has virtually no value, except to the extent it signifies his individual stance on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.136.206 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed editorializing on Miller.
Previously the section under Miller read:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

Not only is this not a summary of the decision or its relation to Miller, it is far from neutral in tone. I've attempted to replace it with something a little more appropriate.

74.203.165.174 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your deletion of my "editorializing," because it was not editorializing. It was a direct quote from the majority in Heller.  Just like all of the other cases listed in that section have direct quotes from those cases.  If you think there's a different quote from Heller that better sums up the majority's position on Miller, I'm all ears. PubliusFL (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the original poster, different IP Address. If these are all quotes, they need to be identified as such, it's not obvious from the article that this is the case.  Probably need cites as well (It appears on p. 50 of the opinion, after I went hunting for it.)  It isn't clear to me (as it appears currently) that it is a direct quote.


 * One might volunteer the following instead:


 * “Certainly,”the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.


 * Although so long as the quotation is correct, I have no objection to its use, however.


 * 76.182.213.102 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is editorializing. Heller was not Miller. I'll revert. If, however, you want to say that 70 years after Miller, the Supreme Court in Heller re-interpreted it by holding [cite quotation], I have no problem with it. Though you should also mention the four dissenting justices would have kept Miller's 70-year-old interpretation of the Second Amendment as restricting the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms to service in a militia only.GreekParadise (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

1985 case of same name
There is a 1985 Supreme Court case also of the name United States v. Miller, which deals with the grand jury procedure. How do I go about (and should we go about) changing the disambiguation italics to reflect this, even if the 1985 case isn't terribly notable. Huadpe (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

side note
USAG Cummings who designed the 1934 NFA and Justice McReynolds who ruled on the NFA in 1939 were also involved in the famous "court packing" proposal of 1937. Justice James McReynolds once proposed a policy of adding a federal judge for each who refused to retire at age seventy at full pay. After the 1936 election, President Roosevelt instructed USAG Homer Cummings to draft court reform legislation. Both were attracted to McReynolds' proposal, for it would give FDR the power to appoint six additional judges to the US Supreme Court, which had ruled some policies of FDR's first term unconstitutional. The "court packing plan" caused an uproar and the proposal died in congressional committee. Which is why we still have a nine judge Supreme Court, and not a Supreme Court that grows by one every time a sitting judge reaches 70 and refuses to retire. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Order
I may be nitpicking here, but shouldn't the relevant cases be listed in ascending order (i.e. 1961-2008) instead of descending order (2008-1961) as they currently are? Vyselink (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reordered the Supreme Court opinions and put them in chronologically. WP:BRD 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Restore neutral introduction
The article used to have a neutral intro correctly saying "a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position." Now the article has several errors. The Miller decision did not limit the 2nd Amendment to any particular purpose, but merely remanded the case for further fact-finding by the lower court. While many cases cites Miller, many cases also said that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. The so-called consensus did not exist, and many courts and scholars held an opposing view. Heller was not the first decision holding for an individual right, as there were many others in the 19th and 20th centuries. Heller was not contrary to Miller. There are no neutral sources to back up this new intro. I realize that some may disagree with some of my comments, but I still object to such a one-sided into. Roger (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With due respect, Roger, you are simply incorrect. Please review the sources cited.  Miller did limit the Second Amendment. See, e.g.,  Lewis v. United States (1980), 455 U.S. 55 n. 8 saying Miller found "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".  As my sources show, that was the consensus in the courts prior to Heller. You'll also find that you are incorrect to claim that any case said the 2nd Amendment was an individual right in the 19th or 20th centuries prior to Heller.


 * I realize you believe you have the history correct. And I believe I have my history correct. (I believe you have fallen victim to a misinformation campaign by some gun enthusiasts.) The nice thing about history is it's objective. There is an accurate truth out there. I'm confident that if you read the more than a dozen citations I provided, you will see I have given an accurate portrayal of the history. Do you contend that I misquoted any of my sources? Or taken any out of context? If so, please tell me precisely how.


 * But if you still believe your view of history is correct, please provide me a reliable, unbiased source, and let's include information from your source as well. That's the nice thing about wikipedia. You present your sources and I present mine. Please find me any 19th or 20th century court decision saying your view of history is correct. But please do not delete my amply sourced material.GreekParadise (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not promoting a version of history. I am just rejecting your original research.


 * Not original research. See the more than a dozen cases I cited.GreekParadise (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your first paragraph summary misstates the case in a way that gives no clue as to why it was cited by both pro-gun and anti-gun factions. Your summary has only the anti-gun version. A neutral version would make it clear why it was cited on both sides.


 * Pro-gun factions cite Miller to distinguish it because they disagree with it. That should be made clear.02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You say "Miller reflected the scholarly and legal consensus". Your sources do not mention Miller or say that Miller reflected a consensus.
 * Sure they do. Read my sources. Let me know if you need a direct quotation.GreekParadise (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You say "This consensus was upended by the 5-4 decision". No, your source says that the consensus was upended by 20 years of scholarly research.
 * The Heller decision cited this research, but research does not change the law. The Supreme Court does.GreekParadise (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comments about Heller are inaccurate and not appropriate anyway. Heller is later, and has its own article. This article is on Miller. Roger (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I agree. Which is why Heller's interpretation of Miller should not be described as fact but as what it is -- a later interpretation of the 1939 Miller decision (in 2008).


 * ♠Amply sourced or not, it's presented in a way that's POV at best, anti-gun (or pro-gun ban) at worst.


 * If it's sourced, it's sourced. What language precisely do you disagree with?GreekParadise (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ♠Consensus prior to Heller may very well be what you state, GP, but it wasn't at that consensus when Miller was decided, nor did (does) Miller establish consensus.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  04:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Miller establisheded a consensus for 70 years. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html. See also the Lewis Supreme Court case I cite and the dozen or so Federal Appellate cases.GreekParadise (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That New Yorker article makes no mention of the Miller decision. Please revert the edit or address the concerns here. Roger (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * GreekParadise, the Miller case was decided very narrowly, and then interpreted differently by pro-gun and anti-gun groups. Your introduction just gives the anti-gun interpretation. It also implies that Heller reversed Miller. But in your comment above, you say Heller was an interpretation of Miller. Which is it? I say that your own sources concede that multiple interpretations are possible, so WP should say that. I also see that you removed the concluding sentence of Miller. Why would you do that? Roger (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Emerson
The Court in Emerson looked at "Miller" and found 1)That SCOTUS granted standing to Miller's 2nd amendment claim. and 2)Did not question Millers membership in an organized militia. Sister circuits had atenuated "Miller" and split as to the question of States right or limited individual right (the right of soldiers to have guns that they brought from home). The court in Emerson found that Miller supports the "Standard model" by name. I started a score card for the circuits but I have to figure out where to put it. J8079s (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph "decisions"
I think this would be a better summary:
 * The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. Also: MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.
 * 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
 * 2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

DOJ briefs
I found the doj briefs "DoJ Brief in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Retrieved 28 July 2014. some what different than what we have. J8079s (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All the documents are here; to help build this article. J8079s (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)