[marktwain]

Miller was a set-up by Judge Ragon who heard the case first. He was an anti-constitutional, anti-gun "progressive" and saw the case as an excellent opportunity to degrade or eliminate the Second Amendment. After Miller, he was on the short list for appointment to the Supreme Court by Roosevelt, but died before he could be appointed.

Part II recounts the history of the case. It shows Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant. It finds Miller was a Second Amendment test case ar- ranged by the government and designed to support the constitu- tionality of federal gun control. And Part III analyzes Miller in light of this history. This essay concludes that Miller is coherent, but largely ir- relevant to the contemporary debate over the meaning of the Sec- ond Amendment. Miller was a Second Amendment test case, teed up with a nominal defendant by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. But the Supreme Court issued a surprisingly narrow decision. Essentially, it held that the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. While dicta suggest the Second Amendment guarantees an individ- ual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service, dicta are not precedent.7 In other words, Miller did not adopt a the- ory of the Second Amendment guarantee, because it did not need one.

www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/.../ecm_pro_060964.pdf - Cached

[MileHi]

Interesting.

Thanks

[Tublecane]

Dicta is not officially precedent, but can become so, with more strength than various real rulings, if future judges like it. This was the case with the infamous Footnote Four, which controls constitutional challenges to this day.