United States v. Miller

TL;DR Summary

The Holding

Facts of the Case

Background

In 1938, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun (with a barrel less than 18 inches) across state lines from Oklahoma to Arkansas, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The National Firearms Act

The NFA, passed in response to Prohibition-era violence, required registration and a $200 tax on certain weapons:

• Machine guns
• Short-barreled rifles (barrel under 16 inches)
• Short-barreled shotguns (barrel under 18 inches)
• Silencers
• "Any other weapons" (disguised firearms)

District Court Decision

The District Court dismissed the indictment, holding the NFA provision violated the Second Amendment. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Unusual Procedural Posture

Critically, neither Miller nor Layton appeared before the Supreme Court, nor were they represented by counsel. Only the government presented arguments. Miller had been murdered before the Court issued its decision.

The Court's Opinion (Justice McReynolds)

The Militia Focus

"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."

— Justice McReynolds, for the Court

Historical Analysis

The Court examined the militia's historical role:

"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...'"

The Court described the colonial and early state militia systems:

• Males physically capable of acting in concert for common defense
• Expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
• Arms in common use at the time

The Militia Clause Connection

"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."

Absence of Evidence

The Court emphasized it had no evidence about the military utility of short-barreled shotguns:

• No evidence presented about weapon's usefulness
• No judicial notice of military value
• Case remanded for further factual development

Legal Analysis

What Miller Actually Decided

The narrow holding focused on:

• The specific weapon type (short-barreled shotgun)
• Lack of evidence about militia usefulness
• Upholding the NFA's registration requirement

Ambiguities in the Decision

Miller's brevity and lack of clarity spawned decades of debate:

The "Militia Purpose" Test

• Did it mean only militia members have Second Amendment rights?
• Or that only militia-suitable weapons are protected?
• What constitutes "reasonable relationship" to militia use?

Individual vs. Collective Right

• Miller didn't explicitly adopt either interpretation
• Referenced both individual armament and collective militia service
• Left fundamental questions unanswered

The Remand That Never Happened

The case was remanded for further proceedings to develop evidence about the weapon's military utility. However:

• Jack Miller was murdered before remand proceedings
• Frank Layton pled guilty
• No factual record was ever developed

Historical Context

The 1930s Legal Environment

• Height of New Deal constitutional expansion
• Courts deferential to federal regulation
• Public concerned about gangster violence
• Limited Second Amendment jurisprudence

Why Short-Barreled Shotguns?

Ironically, short-barreled shotguns (trench guns) were used effectively in World War I:

• Germany protested U.S. use as violating laws of war
• Effective in close-quarters combat
• Court may not have been aware of military use
• No evidence presented due to lack of defense counsel

Impact & Legacy

The "Miller Era" (1939-2008)

For nearly 70 years, Miller was the Supreme Court's only significant Second Amendment decision:

Lower Court Interpretations

• Most circuits adopted "collective right" interpretation
• Emphasized militia purpose language
• Generally upheld federal gun regulations
• Some courts focused on weapon suitability test

Legislative Impact

• Gun Control Act of 1968 passed without constitutional challenge
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004) survived Miller-based challenges
• States varied widely in interpretation

Reinterpretation in Heller

In DC v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court reinterpreted Miller:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said..."

— Justice Scalia, Heller majority opinion

Heller's reading of Miller:

• Miller didn't examine whether defendants were militia members
• Focus was on type of weapon, not person's militia status
• Suggests individual right with weapon-type limitations
• Protected weapons are those "in common use"

Common Misconceptions

The Evidence Gap

It's crucial to understand Miller's procedural context:

• No defense counsel appeared
• No evidence about military use was presented
• Court explicitly noted absence of evidence
• Different evidence might have changed outcome

Citations & Resources