|
''United States v. Miller'', , was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). ''Miller'' is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. ==Background== ''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), 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 Judge 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.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons. In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=The Peculiar Story of U.S. v. Miller )〕 〔United States v. Miller, 26 F. Supp. 1002 (W.D. Ark. 1939) ()〕 On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points: #The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury. #The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. #The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. #The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Miller」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|