Marshall Public Schools
US v. Miller(1939)
Garrett Case Honors US Government Mr. Brennan March 11, 2017
The second Amendment is one of the most controversial topics today, rules, regulations, bans, where does it end? Where is the line draw between weapons for hunting or personal protection and excessive weapons used or owned by everyday people. What our the regulations for weapons that everyday people own an operate, and why do we have these, well this is all explained in the supreme court case Miller v United States. 1939 March 30, Miller v United States was debated in the U.S court system.Miller v United States was the case where the second Amendment was interpreted by the United States …show more content…
All that was heard was the side of the United States government and their views. Although there were many arguments that could have been made in the favor of Jack Miller and Frank Layton. One major argument that could have been made to the fact that the second amendment was only justified for the reason of a well regulated militia was that on both sides of the Civil War, military weapons consisted of short barreled sawed off shotguns, used as a weapon of well regulated militias.For at least thirty years shotguns have been a military issue, years before this case was reviewed. Many Confederate soldiers who privately owned shotguns were permitted use of them, and many had barrels with lengths well below eighteen inches. Considering how scarce weapons were for people in the South, family household shotguns were used. Also throughout World War I shotguns were used by United States forces. Shotguns go even further back, prior to the Revolutionary war, a firearm very similar to the shotgun was issued to British forces, and that firearm was the Blunderbuss. Throughout 1760, Sea Service flintlock Blunderbuss firearms with sixteen inch barrels were issued by the British. This shows a great deal of time before this case weapons such as the one Jack Miller and Frank Layton were in possession of were being issued before the United States was founded. The law-abiding …show more content…
The basis of which the United States government centered their argument around was that the second amendment did not protect the right for Jack Miller and Frank Layton to transport a sawed off shotgun across state lines from Oklahoma to Arkansas. When it was proposed that it was for self defense the government argued that the second amendment was created in relation to a well regulated militia to have security of a free state from a tyrannical government. Protection by bearing arms was only meant for an effective militia but not for those weapons to be used for personal purposes. The U.S. government seen it as that Jack Miller’s sawed off shotgun had no connection to a well regulated militia being that it was sawed off and being used for personal protection. In addition to the shotgun being sawed off under eighteen inches, which was under the legal limit, the firearm was not registered whatsoever. Even if the argument was not being just the firearm being used for personal protection but if that was allowed regulations would require that firearm to be registered with the state. With that said limits on possession of a narrow group of firearms is applied by the national Firearms Act, this act does not even ban the firearms. With there being no relation to a well regulated militia, not being registered,
US v. Miller(1939)
Garrett Case Honors US Government Mr. Brennan March 11, 2017
The second Amendment is one of the most controversial topics today, rules, regulations, bans, where does it end? Where is the line draw between weapons for hunting or personal protection and excessive weapons used or owned by everyday people. What our the regulations for weapons that everyday people own an operate, and why do we have these, well this is all explained in the supreme court case Miller v United States. 1939 March 30, Miller v United States was debated in the U.S court system.Miller v United States was the case where the second Amendment was interpreted by the United States …show more content…
All that was heard was the side of the United States government and their views. Although there were many arguments that could have been made in the favor of Jack Miller and Frank Layton. One major argument that could have been made to the fact that the second amendment was only justified for the reason of a well regulated militia was that on both sides of the Civil War, military weapons consisted of short barreled sawed off shotguns, used as a weapon of well regulated militias.For at least thirty years shotguns have been a military issue, years before this case was reviewed. Many Confederate soldiers who privately owned shotguns were permitted use of them, and many had barrels with lengths well below eighteen inches. Considering how scarce weapons were for people in the South, family household shotguns were used. Also throughout World War I shotguns were used by United States forces. Shotguns go even further back, prior to the Revolutionary war, a firearm very similar to the shotgun was issued to British forces, and that firearm was the Blunderbuss. Throughout 1760, Sea Service flintlock Blunderbuss firearms with sixteen inch barrels were issued by the British. This shows a great deal of time before this case weapons such as the one Jack Miller and Frank Layton were in possession of were being issued before the United States was founded. The law-abiding …show more content…
The basis of which the United States government centered their argument around was that the second amendment did not protect the right for Jack Miller and Frank Layton to transport a sawed off shotgun across state lines from Oklahoma to Arkansas. When it was proposed that it was for self defense the government argued that the second amendment was created in relation to a well regulated militia to have security of a free state from a tyrannical government. Protection by bearing arms was only meant for an effective militia but not for those weapons to be used for personal purposes. The U.S. government seen it as that Jack Miller’s sawed off shotgun had no connection to a well regulated militia being that it was sawed off and being used for personal protection. In addition to the shotgun being sawed off under eighteen inches, which was under the legal limit, the firearm was not registered whatsoever. Even if the argument was not being just the firearm being used for personal protection but if that was allowed regulations would require that firearm to be registered with the state. With that said limits on possession of a narrow group of firearms is applied by the national Firearms Act, this act does not even ban the firearms. With there being no relation to a well regulated militia, not being registered,