I know that there was a lot of emphasis on the usefulness of a short-barreled shotgun for militia purposes, but the case ALSO relied upon the ability of the Feds to regulate firearms.
Check out this analysis of the Miller case:
http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
On page 26 of that .pdf, near the bottom, and going on to page 27, is the following:
“In any case, McReynolds began Miller by emphasizing the
NFA satisfies the Tenth Amendment only because it is at least
nominally a tax, rather than a regulation. 193 As the government pointed out, “even as to this class of firearms there is not a word in the National Firearms Act which expressly prohibits the obtaining, ownership, possession or transportation thereof by anyone if compliance
is had with the provisions relating to registration, the payment of taxes, and the possession of stamp-affixed orders.” 194 So, whatever it holds, Miller does not hold that Congress can regulate firearms directly. The rejection of Miller’s Tenth Amendment claim highlights the implausibility of his Second Amendment claim. Miller could not just argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess and use NFA firearms. He had to claim it prohibits taxation of NFA firearms. Unsurprisingly, McReynolds found this claim unconvincing. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, it hardly prohibits Congress from taxing particular weapons.”
BTW, don’t assume that I agree with the “Miller” case - I find it an awful case which perhaps had some utility (in the pre-”Heller” world) to fight gun control, IF you could craft the right case and make certain that the firearm in question undoubtedly had “utility as a militia weapon.” Of course, now much of “Miller,” if not the entire thing, is pretty much moot. I look forward to a case after Kavanaugh is confirmed, as I believe that many of the issues that both “Miller” and “Heller” avoided will be addressed. As an Originalist/Textualist, Kavanaugh is VERY well aware of the Article 1, Section 8 power that Congress has to grant “Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” which necessarily presume the private ownership of naval cannon and warships (or commercial ships converted to warships) with which to attack enemy shipping. Such a “big view” of the 2nd Amendment will, IMHO, render the entire NFA unconstitutional...if you can own cannon, why on Earth can you be prevented from owning full autos, suppressors, sawed-off shotties, etc.?
I wish I could but I can't. I'm recovering from cataract surgery and don't yet have working glasses. I'll have to rely on you to do the heavy lifting.
I don't agree with the analysis in so far as it suggests that taxation of firearms would not be an infringement. All I am seeing is that Congress has the authority to tax and that Congress lacks the authority to involve itself in matters that are reserved to the states.
I would certainly agree that the guidance provided by the Miller quote was quite abbreviated. The bottom line remains, however, that the sparse quidance to the lower court only concerned whether the shotgun was useful to a Militia. This would indicate to me that the Miller Court had decided against any authority of Congress to tax arms.
Otherwise, the Miller Court could have disposed of the case by simply asking the lower court to decide whether the tax was permissible and not an "infringement". Or, since it would be a matter of law and not a matter of fact, the Miller Court could have simply declared that the tax was permissible and ordered the lower court to reinstate the charges against Miller.
I've always been impressed by the fact that the District Court which had original jurisdiction found it so easy to simply dismiss the charges and declare the NFA invalid.