United States v. Miller

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation59 S.Ct. 816,83 L.Ed. 1206,307 U.S. 174
Docket NumberNo. 696,696
Decision Date15 May 1939

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.

Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

No appearance for appellees.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'1

A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.—'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.'

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

The cause is here by direct appeal.

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513, 57 S.Ct. 554, 81 L.Ed. 772, and what was ruled in sundry causes aris- ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061, Ann.Cas.1917D, 854; United States v. Doremus, 1919, 249 U.S. 86, 94, 39 S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493; Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229; Alston v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 289, 47 S.Ct. 634, 71 L.Ed. 1052; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600—the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

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. 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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8. 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 Nilitia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

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.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'

'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England—

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, * * *.' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, be- ing a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. * * * That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; * * *.'

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'

Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: * * * every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
384 cases
  • Galvan v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 23, 1969
    ...by every court which has ruled on the question. (Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 248 A.2d 521, 525--529; United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206; Miller v. Texas, (1894) 153 U.S. 535, 538, 14 S.Ct. 874, 38 L.Ed. 812; Presser v. Illinois (1886) 116 U.S. 252......
  • Fouts v. Bonta
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • September 22, 2021
    ...arms that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Miller implies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon commonly owned, that could be par......
  • Seegars v. Ashcroft
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • January 14, 2004
    ...Supreme Court's only substantive discussion of the Second Amendment is found in the 1939 seminal case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). In Miller , the defendants were indicted for "unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport[ing] ......
  • Duncan v. Becerra, Case No.: 3:17cv1017-BEN (JLB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • March 29, 2019
    ...possession of a larger capacity magazine is also categorically protected by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). " Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying ‘the sorts of lawfu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 books & journal articles
  • The constitutionality of social cost.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 34 No. 3, June 2011
    • June 22, 2011
    ...the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." (188.) 307 U.S. 174 (189.) See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008) (quoting Miller, 307 U.S. at 179). (190.) McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 2136 (Breyer......
  • Second Amendment Federalism.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 73 No. 3, March 2021
    • March 1, 2021
    ...from a pool of men bringing arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense." (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939))); id. at 630 (noting that the D.C. ordinance "makes it impossible for citizens to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of se......
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 170 No. 3, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...is circumscribed in myriad ways). (17) See infra Part III. (18) Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (1943); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968); United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971);......
  • Firing Blanks: Louisiana's New Right to Bear Arms
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-1, October 2013
    • October 1, 2013
    ...amounts to a 30% survival rate under strict scrutiny—illustrating that strict scrutiny is hardly fatal. 47. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980). The Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment only five times total in its history......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT