Appellant
United States
Appellees
Jack Miller, Frank Layton
Appellant's Claim
That the Western Arkansas District Court had erred in dismissing indictmentsagainst the appellees for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Gordon Dean
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
None
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Pierce Butler, Felix Frankfurter, Charles Evans Hughes,James Clark McReynolds (writing for the Court), Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone
Justices Dissenting
None (William O. Douglas did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 May 1939
Decision
In favor of the government's appeal, reversing the lower court's dismissal ofcharges against Miller and Layton.
Significance
By declaring that a sawed-off shotgun had no reasonable relation to the termsof the Second Amendment, the Court set an important precedent for later cases involving firearms possession.
Sawed-Off Shotguns & The Second Amendment
When Jack Miller and Frank Layton were stopped in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, police found a double-barreled, 12-gauge shotgun in their possession. The gun,bought by the men in Claremore, Oklahoma, earned them an arrest for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Prohibition ended in 1933, but memories of over a decade of gangland mayhem were still fresh a year later. Bank robberies and other violent federal offenses were still a concern when Congress passed The National Firearms Act on 23June 1934. The law focused on machine guns, silencers, and all rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches. To sell or otherwise "transfer" such a weapon, the owner or manufacturer was required to register it and pay a$200 tax, in return for regulatory tax stamps. In effect, the law prohibitedthe interstate transportation of such weapons and their subsequent ownership.Penalties for violating the Firearms Act included a $2,000 fine and/or fiveyears imprisonment.
Miller and Layton's shotgun had been sawed off. They were charged with transporting a shotgun whose barrel was less than 18 inches long across state lineswithout proper registration and without a federal tax stamp. Attorneys for the men filed a motion for demurrer, asking that the indictment be dismissed.The lawyers argued that the law under which Miller and Layton had been indicted violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The demurrer also alleged that the tax clauses of the Firearms Act were not genuine revenue collecting measures, but an attempt by the federal government to usurp police powersreserved to the states. The Western Arkansas District Court agreed. The indictments were dismissed and the two men were freed.
Preserving A Well-Regulated Militia
Federal authorities were unwilling to ignore this challenge, even though Miller and Layton quickly disappeared after gaining their freedom. The government's appeal of the decision to quash the indictment was argued before the Supreme Court on 30 March 1939. Since Miller and Layton were not available despitebeing named as the appellees, only the government argument was heard. The Court quickly returned a decision in favor of the government on 15 May, agreeing unanimously that the Firearms Act neither violated the Second Amendment norwas an unconstitutional infringement of states' rights.
Like the defendants' lawyers and the Arkansas court, the Supreme Court decision focused on the Second Amendment, which states:
In his written decision, Justice McReynolds sketched the origins and importance of self-armed citizen militias in the early history of the American colonies. In the present case, however, McReynolds and other members of the Court rejected the idea that weapons named in the Firearms Act had any valid relation to the maintenance of military protection.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use ofa `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 theright to keep and bear such an instrument," wrote McReynolds.
By this standard, the Court found that Congress had not violated the Second Amendment by passing the Firearms Act. "Certainly," McReynolds added, "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."
The Court's decision that the charges against Miller and Layton were incorrectly dismissed had no effect on the indicted men, both of whom vanished long before their names appeared on the national legal battlefield. In a larger sense, however, the Miller decision became a benchmark for lower courts in deciding cases dealing with gun possession. By narrowly interpreting the Second Amendment right to gun ownership according to its relationship to a "well-regulated militia," the Court, for the first time, provided a framework within which regulatory firearms legislation could be drafted.
Related Cases
The Brady Bill
On 30 March 1981, would-be assassin John David Hinckley fired on President Ronald Reagan as he left a Washington, D.C. hotel. Reagan was not critically wounded; but his press secretary, James Brady, was paralyzed for life. As a result, Brady and his wife Sarah became active in the campaign for handgun control legislation, and because Brady was a former member of a conservative administration, the couple were particularly popular spokespeople for gun control--typically a liberal issue.
Congress, on 30 November 1993, passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, popularly known as the "Brady Bill." The Brady Bill's provisions includeda five-day waiting period for persons buying firearms; background checks onprospective firearms purchasers; up to $200 million a year to upgrade states'criminal recordkeeping; federal court prosecution for gun theft; and a hikein fees for federal firearms licenses from $30 to $200.
Despite these measures, as US News reported, "If there's one thing supporters and opponents of the Brady Bill agree on . . . it is that the measure. . . won't stop the majority of criminals from obtaining firearms." Only 17percent of firearms used by criminals, according to the magazine, are obtained through lawful means.
Sources
Witkin, Gordon. "Gun Control's Limits." US News & World Report, 6December 1993.
United States
Appellees
Jack Miller, Frank Layton
Appellant's Claim
That the Western Arkansas District Court had erred in dismissing indictmentsagainst the appellees for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Gordon Dean
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
None
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Pierce Butler, Felix Frankfurter, Charles Evans Hughes,James Clark McReynolds (writing for the Court), Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone
Justices Dissenting
None (William O. Douglas did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 May 1939
Decision
In favor of the government's appeal, reversing the lower court's dismissal ofcharges against Miller and Layton.
Significance
By declaring that a sawed-off shotgun had no reasonable relation to the termsof the Second Amendment, the Court set an important precedent for later cases involving firearms possession.
Sawed-Off Shotguns & The Second Amendment
When Jack Miller and Frank Layton were stopped in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, police found a double-barreled, 12-gauge shotgun in their possession. The gun,bought by the men in Claremore, Oklahoma, earned them an arrest for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Prohibition ended in 1933, but memories of over a decade of gangland mayhem were still fresh a year later. Bank robberies and other violent federal offenses were still a concern when Congress passed The National Firearms Act on 23June 1934. The law focused on machine guns, silencers, and all rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches. To sell or otherwise "transfer" such a weapon, the owner or manufacturer was required to register it and pay a$200 tax, in return for regulatory tax stamps. In effect, the law prohibitedthe interstate transportation of such weapons and their subsequent ownership.Penalties for violating the Firearms Act included a $2,000 fine and/or fiveyears imprisonment.
Miller and Layton's shotgun had been sawed off. They were charged with transporting a shotgun whose barrel was less than 18 inches long across state lineswithout proper registration and without a federal tax stamp. Attorneys for the men filed a motion for demurrer, asking that the indictment be dismissed.The lawyers argued that the law under which Miller and Layton had been indicted violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The demurrer also alleged that the tax clauses of the Firearms Act were not genuine revenue collecting measures, but an attempt by the federal government to usurp police powersreserved to the states. The Western Arkansas District Court agreed. The indictments were dismissed and the two men were freed.
Preserving A Well-Regulated Militia
Federal authorities were unwilling to ignore this challenge, even though Miller and Layton quickly disappeared after gaining their freedom. The government's appeal of the decision to quash the indictment was argued before the Supreme Court on 30 March 1939. Since Miller and Layton were not available despitebeing named as the appellees, only the government argument was heard. The Court quickly returned a decision in favor of the government on 15 May, agreeing unanimously that the Firearms Act neither violated the Second Amendment norwas an unconstitutional infringement of states' rights.
Like the defendants' lawyers and the Arkansas court, the Supreme Court decision focused on the Second Amendment, which states:
A well regulatedmilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In his written decision, Justice McReynolds sketched the origins and importance of self-armed citizen militias in the early history of the American colonies. In the present case, however, McReynolds and other members of the Court rejected the idea that weapons named in the Firearms Act had any valid relation to the maintenance of military protection.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use ofa `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 theright to keep and bear such an instrument," wrote McReynolds.
By this standard, the Court found that Congress had not violated the Second Amendment by passing the Firearms Act. "Certainly," McReynolds added, "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."
The Court's decision that the charges against Miller and Layton were incorrectly dismissed had no effect on the indicted men, both of whom vanished long before their names appeared on the national legal battlefield. In a larger sense, however, the Miller decision became a benchmark for lower courts in deciding cases dealing with gun possession. By narrowly interpreting the Second Amendment right to gun ownership according to its relationship to a "well-regulated militia," the Court, for the first time, provided a framework within which regulatory firearms legislation could be drafted.
Related Cases
- United States v. Smith, 341 F.Supp. 687 (1972).
The Brady Bill
On 30 March 1981, would-be assassin John David Hinckley fired on President Ronald Reagan as he left a Washington, D.C. hotel. Reagan was not critically wounded; but his press secretary, James Brady, was paralyzed for life. As a result, Brady and his wife Sarah became active in the campaign for handgun control legislation, and because Brady was a former member of a conservative administration, the couple were particularly popular spokespeople for gun control--typically a liberal issue.
Congress, on 30 November 1993, passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, popularly known as the "Brady Bill." The Brady Bill's provisions includeda five-day waiting period for persons buying firearms; background checks onprospective firearms purchasers; up to $200 million a year to upgrade states'criminal recordkeeping; federal court prosecution for gun theft; and a hikein fees for federal firearms licenses from $30 to $200.
Despite these measures, as US News reported, "If there's one thing supporters and opponents of the Brady Bill agree on . . . it is that the measure. . . won't stop the majority of criminals from obtaining firearms." Only 17percent of firearms used by criminals, according to the magazine, are obtained through lawful means.
Sources
Witkin, Gordon. "Gun Control's Limits." US News & World Report, 6December 1993.
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly's Guide tothe U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,Inc., 1996.
- McLenden, Regina. "Limits On the Federal Power To Regulate Firearms." Public Law Research Institute, University of California, Hastings College ofLaw. fall, 1994.
- "Supreme Court Bars Sawed-Off Shotgun." New York Times, 16 May 1939, p. 15.
User Comments Add a comment…