Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« VERY interesting book on combat | Main | Australian newspaper »

Great article on US v. Miller

Posted by David Hardy · 22 June 2007 09:20 AM

Here, "The Peculiar Story of US v. Miller. I think it totally "writes out" the case. The author's research is incredible, tracing Miller's story in detail, and concluding that the district judge meant to set up a Supreme Court case that would get himself reversed (his opinion struck down the NFA, but in reality he was a supporter of federal gun laws who had laughed off the Second Amendment). He explains one reason Miller is so brief and terse: its author, McReynolds, wrote very short opinions. And why there was no input from the defense: Miller's attorney was involved in a very hot political fight at the time.

The conclusion is that Miller is what I've termed a hybrid rights case: the right to arms is an individual right, but only covers military-style arms. That sort of ruling became popular in the mid 1800s, when the issues were largely arms laws regulating daggers, brass knuckles, etc.

Hat tip to Joe Olson.

· US v. Miller ~ · US v. Miller

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Jerry | June 22, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply

Its surprising that the author doesn't focus more on the adequacy of counsel angle. How often has Supreme Court precedent been made where only one side of the case was argued. Even if Defense had been present to argue, to give the defense 16 days to prepare seems absurdly short; compounded by the fact that the Government's argument was not provided to counsel till after the case had been argued. Add to that fact that there is fairly blatant quid pro quo with respect to the actions of the Defense counsel (pushover lawyering for a seat in congress); saying Miller fairly decided anything is a farce.

Bill | June 26, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply

I finished reading the article last night. I'm surprised the author relied on Michael Bellesiles as a source (nn. 96 and 225).

I find the argument interesting that the Second Amendment does not protect the kinds of guns that gangsters and other criminals use - only guns that law-abiding citizens use. Seems quite circular to me.

Leave a comment