"Then, United States vs. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use."
Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side.
The defendants naver showed up...
Miller didn't have the resources. IIRC, the case wasn't really argued.
Miller died and was not represented before the Supreme Court. Had so much as a monkey represented him, ample docmentation could have been provided of the use of sawed off shotguns in WWI trench warfare.
I've got a copy of just about everything you could possibly ask for on my website. See US v. Miller. Ignore the certificate error if you get one. My site is in transition at the moment.
This is also a good link to keep one busy for awhile.
http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
They did win at the appellate level, though.
L
There wasn't one, a pro 2nd side that is, at the Supreme Court. It was successfully argued at the district court level, during pretrial motions. The judge dismissed the case on the basis that no violation of a valid law was alleged.
Only the government was represented before the Supreme Court. The NRA did not file a friend of the Court brief, being mostly a target shooting and hunting group in those days, the persons originally charged were also not represented. Today that would not happen. Even if they could not be located, which was more or less the case then, counsel would be appointed to represent them. One of the parties was dead by the time the Court rendered its opinion.
See this collection of Miller Documents for the whole sordid story.
Neither Miller nor his attorney showed up.
Simple Miller had died in prison ,his lawyers no longer had a client didn’t bother to show up before the court to argue their side if the case.
Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side.
The prosecution lied saying that shotguns were not a militia arm. None of the Justices had served in the military (or they would have known how handy the shotgun was during WWI), and the defense was not present as the lawyer for the defense never bothered to file a brief for the Supreme Court hearing.
“Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side. “
The nine answers I received in 2006 were sufficient.
Because there WAS no opposing side! ONLY the government’s position was argued.
On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:Source: Wikipedia
The National Firearms Act [NFA] is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.