THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER

The Peculiar Story of United States V. Miller ^ | 3 July, 2008 | marktwain

[marktwain]

The last case directly involving the Second Amendment before D.C. V. HELLER was UNITED STATES V. MILLER, decided in 1939. A great deal of misinformation has been written about MILLER, but the facts are much stranger than most of the fiction that has been printed about the case.

The article that is linked reveals fascinating items about the MILLER case. The trial judge, Hiram Heartsill Ragon, was a partisan Democrat Roosevelt appointee who was endorsed by the KKK. Ragon was an anti-gun activist who used the criminal, Miller, as his vehicle to fashion a test case for the Roosevelt administration with no evidence presented by the defense for the Second Amendment. The article shows the NRA of the time was in passive collusion.

While the article has a decidedly statist flavor to it, it is scholarly and extensively footnoted. It is a must read for all who wish to understand the checkered history of anti Second Amendment activism in the United States.

[marktwain]

I was amazed at the detail that had been researched in this article, and how little attention has been paid to it. Brian L. Frye deserves our gratitude for the wonderful research that he conducted.

Here is the link again:

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/PDF/0801/Law%20Review%20US%20v%20Miller.pdf

[marktwain]

Hmmm. Let me try that link again:

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/PDF/0801/Law%20Review%20US%20v%20Miller.pdf

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Hmm. KOTV is channel 6 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Siloam Springs is not far from here.

[sinanju]

Very interesting, it shows an NRA that was happy to go along with the public opinion that “tommy guns” and “sawed-off shotguns” were strictly gangster weapons and should not be owned by decent citizens.

Of course, it was a different world and I don’t see how anyone could have anticipated today’s environment where every imaginable loophole or clause is exploited to restrict the publics’ right to own or carry any firearm.

It also illuminated how the commerce clause is stretched and distorted by Congress to regulate just about anything. The saying I was brought up with as a conservative was that Congress uses the interstate commerce clause to regulate anything and everything and the threat of withholding of federal highway funds to force the states to comply.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

A fascinating story! Back in the 1970’s the TV producers found Miller. Just about every program had an anti-handgun segment (including ALL IN THE FAMILY and BARNEY MILLER) in which handguns were “proven” unprotected by the second ammendment. Rifles were blessed but handguns damned.

[umgud]

A few years ago I sent a a very polite email to Sen Dianne Feinstein regarding her stance on guns. She responded citing Miller as her proof that the 2A was a collective right only.

I’ve now sent her a follow up very short email that simply stated “Neener, neener, neener.”

[barb-tex]

If you combine Heller and Miller, you could deduce that not only is the 2nd an individual right, but it embraces any weapon that would be used by the militia. This should include Full Auto weapons, as well as artillery pieces, Mortars, rocket launchers etc and yes, sawed-off shotguns. Will this come to pass? I won't hold my breath.
barbra ann

[MosesKnows]

no one represented Miller or Layton.128

Thank you for posting.

This was most interesting and filled many blanks that existed from previous research into Miller 1939. I had discovered that after Miller and Layton’s victory in the trial court, defendant Miller was murdered and defendant Layton disappeared. So I knew why the Supreme Court did not receive any written or oral arguments on behalf of the defendants when the government appealed the case. However this amount of detail is rarely presented in one concise document.

[MosesKnows]

email to Sen Dianne Feinstein

If Feinstein and other socialist, democrats, and liberals viewed the 2nd amendment with the zeal they display for the 1st amendment, they would insist that everyone be armed day and night.

[marktwain]

“I had discovered that after Miller and Layton’s victory in the trial court, defendant Miller was murdered and defendant Layton disappeared. So I knew why the Supreme Court did not receive any written or oral arguments on behalf of the defendants when the government appealed the case.”

---

I guess you could call it a “victory”. Both had agreed to plead guilty, but Judge Ragon ruled against the indictment (a very unusual proceeding) apparently to get a test case that had no opposing argument.