Supreme court case ?

[nynco]

There was a supreme court case I read about a while ago that I can not find. It was a case from the late 1800s to the early 1900s that stated that the 2nd Amendment protected a citizens right to be armed with the same base level of weapon that would be standard military issue personal firearm.

Does anyone know that case?

[cstone]

US v Miller 1939

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

It is an odd case because the case was not fully argued and by the time the decision was rendered the case was moot as Miller was dead and no longer had any rights to be protected.

[nynco]

Thank you for the reply CStone. I am not sure if that is the case. I am skimming it and not finding the part I am looking for. Perhaps I am missing it? Are there other cases?

[merl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois ?
I don't see exactly what you are looking for in there but there is this:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

[Aloha_Shooter]

No, that IS the case. The Court held against Miller because they thought (erroneously) that his firearm was NOT commonly used by the military.


we cannot say that the Second Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly 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.

[SideShow Bob]

Don't know if the author used creative liberties, but this case is part of the plot build up in the book "Unintended Consequences".....

[cstone]

A decent source: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

US v Miller is a case that dealt with Miller's possession of a sawed off shotgun, which had been regulated by the NFA in 1934. The argument revolved around the unusual nature of the sawed off shotgun and one of the Justices commented about the right of the government to regulate the length of shotguns because the military did not issue shortened shotguns at the time. As it turns out the Justice was ill informed because the US military routinely issued and used trench guns during WW I. The same Justice in his comments stated that citizens were entitled to have the same weapons as routinely issued and used by the military. Since neither Miller or his attorney were able to appear before the court they were not able to correct the issue and it was not deemed to be a precedent as Miller's death made the court's opinion essentially moot.

I would need to reread the case to be more specific about the identity of the Justice and to insure I have the details correct.

The SCOTUS has been fairly consistent in the few cases related to the 2nd Amendment. The right of citizens to keep weapons for their protection predates the Constitution. The Constitution in the 2nd Amendment just recognizes the natural right all citizens are born with.

[nynco]

Thanks everyone for your input. I will read about the items you listed. This is why I like this site. I am also using this stuff for factual argument material.

[BPTactical]

I am also using this stuff for factual argument material.

Reason #27 to not have liberal friends.

[losttrail]

Reason #27 to not have liberal friends.

I have no liberal friends. I know Liberals that are acquaintances but not friends.