It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional: United States v. Miller

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:28 AM
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),[1] 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.[2]


Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]

United States v. Miller

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?

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:33 AM
But, since when have the politicians cared about a.) The Bill of Rights, b.) The Constitution in general, c.) Settled or established case law and d.) the will of the people???

Um, just about NEVER!

But what I notice in this particular case is that depending on WHO is interpreting the decision and WHAT their agenda is, this can be twisted into an argument against so-called "assault rifles" as they are not military issue. So, its best to be careful and measured when referring to case law.

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by kozmo

This is very true. I guess if we go by the miller case we should all be able to have the exact same types of firearms that are issued to the military.

Although feeding an M-4 during full auto can get quite expensive...

I prefer my semi-auto anyway. I can shoot accurately and not waste ammo.

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by SWCCFAN

This is eventually going to be taken to the Supreme Court, they will find some retarded way to ban Assault rifles. Just like Heath Care ONLY passing because it was reconsidered as a tax.
edit on 1-2-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by milkyway12

Just because they pass a law and the Supreme Court upholds it, doesn't mean the people will follow the law.

Remember everything Hitler did was Legal under their laws.

If we look at world history and look at Germany, Russia, and China we see that first it was registration, then confiscation, closely followed by government mass murdering political dissidents.

I haven't met a single firearms owner that has said they will comply...

We should keep our eyes on NY to see how well their law works....

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:06 AM
Doesnt matter if an AWB is constitutional or not.

Say they enact one.

It'll take years for argument to reach the SCOTUS meanwhile people will be thrown in cells, property will be confiscated, towns even states will revolt.

And in the end if it us upheld the turmoil will continue for decades and if it is struck down the damage is done. People affected wont get their property back, their money back, their time back, their lives back.

Constitutional or not it'll be a mess.

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:19 AM
This case also underscores the adage that only those who can AFFORD justice will be afforded justice.
Had not Miller been assassinated prior to the SCOTUS case and his lawyer been better financed, perhaps the decision may have been more agreeable to Second Amendment supporters.


posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by ganjoa

I couldn't agree more. Money does talk; that's how the elites have been controlling politics and policies world wide.

It's not going to change anytime soon and class warfare will continue between the have's and the have-not's.

new topics

top topics


log in