What Does the Second Amendment REALLY Mean? | US v. Miller
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2018
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 34 of Supreme Court Briefs, state troopers find an illegal sawed-off shotgun in the car of two gangsters, which leads to the only Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment of the 20th century.
Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Joykill, featured on Brown Bear Records.
Photo credits:
Fibonacci Blue
Gillfoto
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/...
Other sources used:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm
migration.nyulaw.me/sites/defa...
www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net...
www.enterstageright.com/archiv...
Siloam Springs, Arkansas
April 18, 1938
Both Oklahoma and Arkansas state troopers pull over Frank Layton and Jack Miller, two known gang members (The O’Malley Gang) known for going around and robbing places. They find an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun in the car and arrest them for breaking the National Firearms Act, or NFA, a federal law passed in 1934 that put an excise tax on making, selling, and transporting certain firearms and required people had to register those firearms if they had them. Also, the NFA said such gun owners had to report transporting the guns across state lines to the federal government when moving. The gun Layton and Miller had was untaxed and unregistered.
Layton and Miller argued that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional because it not only went against the 2nd Amendment, but also the 10th Amendment. The District Court judge, a dude named Heartsill Ragon (what a heartbreaker he was), acted like he agreed and dismissed the case, saying the NFA violated the Second Amendment. Here’s the thing, though. Apparently judge Ragon was cool with the NFA, and just ruled that way because he knew Miller had just ratted out a bunch of his gangster friends and would have to go into hiding after he was released. Also, Miller wouldn’t pay a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court anyway.
So yeah, the United States of America appealed the case by skipping the appellate courts and going directly to the Supreme Court, who heard arguments on March 30, 1939, and just as Ragon had predicted, the defense didn’t even show up. Yep, absolutely no arguments were made and no evidence was presented on behalf of either Jack Miller or the Second Amendment. The Court heard lots from the attorneys for the United States, though. Their main arguments were:
#1 - The NFA was mainly a way to collect revenue, so the Treasury Department gave the feds the authority to enforce it
#2 - Eh, look, the defendants transported the sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, so this was totally interstate commerce
And #3 - Sooo, the Second Amendment only protects having military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia, and the weapon found in Layton and Miller’s car, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches, ain’t ever been used in any militia.
On May 15, 1939, the Court reached its decision. It sided with the United States, reversing the lower court, and saying the National Firearms Act indeed was constitutional. It was 8-0. Justice William Douglas did not participate in this case. So the Court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to have a sawed-off double barrel shotgun because that specific weapon was not a reasonable weapon for either a well-regulated militia or self defense.
US v. Miller was the only Supreme Court case that directly dealt with the Second Amendment in the 20th century. In fact, it wouldn’t be until 2008 when the Supreme Court tackled the Second Amendment again, in a case called DC v Heller. I have a video for that one. Check it out after this one and stuff. Interestingly, both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates interpret US v. Miller as a decision that helps their side. Gun control folks say the decision is proof that the federal government is justified regulating certain types of firearms. Gun rights folks say the decision was good because it explicitly and specifically stated people have the right to own a firearm for self-defense and to form militias. However, today US v. Miller doesn’t seem to solve the gun control debate- it just seems to complicate it.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
I knew the moment the two defendants failed to show up for the *Supreme Court* that this was not going to turn out great for them. *face palm*
I know right? I still can't get over that.
Oops
And now gun control is justified off of a case that admits it was made "in the absence of any evidence" and without any appropriate appeal. Just like the rest of gun control they railroad it down everyone's throats and limit as much blowback as possible. This kind of crap will kill lots of people.
@@samuelng7852 Name one justification for gun control. I'm honestly interested in hearing what it is. name as many as possible if you can.
@@samuelng7852 Yes. When controls were much stricter than at present the homicide rate was multiples higher. Minnesota had a record number of concealed carry permit holders in 2018 after a record number of gun sales in 2017 and they had the lowest rate of violent crime since before the carry restrictions were put in place in the mid-1960s.
The poor 3rd amendment never gets any attention. Also Mr. Beat looks like he's been lifting.
It never does. :D
@Thomas Jefferson Yup, and arms are defined as, "Any Thing that may be used for offensive or defensive purposes; usually refers to Weapons of Military Utility. Archaic: Weapons of Offence or Armour of Defence." Several founders used the term of, "arms usual in the regular service," to define the type weaponry that was reserved for Americans to keep and carry. So, yes, the term, "arms" is much broader than just "guns" or "firearms".
@Thomas Jefferson Do bears have arms?
@@the4tierbridge No. Bears don't have ams. They have arms.
@@MH_0015 You clearly got the point.
It's still insane to me that a case still used to this day in defense of gun control was pretty much a one sided argument when the final decision was made. One of them died and the other had already made a plea deal so there was literally nobody left to make the defenses case by the time it was looked at by the Supreme Court. 😐
I just love your freaking videos
Well this makes me happy. Thank you :D
Sounds like a setup to have a law tested in the supreme court with the worst possible opposing argument.
The second amendment says shall not be infringed. Infringe means to limit or undermine and this law does both. its unconstitutional plain and simple
Guns are dangerous & should be banned from citizens hands
I am a direct descendant of Jack Miller. He was my mothers uncle, Although it sounds very sensational, what you also have to understand is that uncle Jack’s wife died. He was diabetic and he had five kids to support. In Oklahoma the depression hit everyone so incredibly hard that he really had no choice but to turn to crime to support his family as well as his friends. There was a lot of conspiracy going on back in the 1930’s. Being Cherokee Indian didn’t help! Our tribe was robbed, lied to and basic necessities were denied because we were Indian.
Unless there was some incest going on, you're not a direct descendant of your great uncle.
@@Compucles I learned something about Cherokee Indians today.
"crime cannot be tolerated. Criminals thrive on society's understanding" - Batman Begins
If what you say is true, they were treated very unfairly but stealing from those in need doesn't truly help anyone.
Source "Trust me bro".
Miller states that a double barrel sawn off shotgum isn’t used in any militia, therefore it falls under the purview of the NFA
Under miller machineguns, short barreled rifles and shotguns are technically not under the NFA purview as they are all used by militaries and militias the world over.
Think of that, a court decision overturns itself
We need to have Jesus Christ in our lives, barring that, a .45 under the pillow helps when dealing with CRIMINALS...
Not quite. There's a difference between shotguns and sawn off shotguns, and that's what the court addressed.
@@alonkatz4633 wrong, Miller holds that any weapons used in a military or militia are protected by 2A, add into that the latest Bruen decision and the NFA being moot is just a matter of time and lawsuits
@@floivanus The Bruen decision didn't exist until 80 years after the Miller decision. When Miller was written, it was sound.
@@alonkatz4633 jeebus dude Miller finds that a Stevens Double barrel shtotgun, being less than 26” OAL or having barrels less than 18” in length is perfectly fine to be regulated by the NFA because it had NO MILITARY USE, its supposed to be a narrow, tailored decision. Judicial activists have applied it broadly.
The Miller test, applied correctly by itself would gut the NFA, but getting it heard and applied correctly was impossible, that’s where Bruen comes into play.
Your Supreme Court brief videos and your American Presidential Election videos are very high quality and are the reason I subscribed to this channel. Keep up the good work. For the next Supreme Court brief, or at least sometime in the near future, could you please do Hobby Lobby v Burwell (2014). Cheers.
Wow! This is an excellent channel. Nice job dude. Informative, entertaining, interesting and well produced. Bravo!
Thanks so much! :D
Mr. Beat - No problem. You should do one about the legislative powers that congress has delagated to the executive or outsourced to other entities.
I like how nearly everyone is talking about Mr Beat's arms..
That's a really interesting case. Especially with the current debate over AR-15s and such. Great video!
Definitely! That's why I couldn't resist releasing this. And thank you! :)
AR-15s aren't even a military weapon, it's a semi-automatic sporting rifle.
@@EternalDeath14 Doesn't that make the 1986 Full auto ban unconstitutional
@@tmh2duggy According to US v Miller, yes it does.
@@EternalDeath14 we'd all have proper select fire ARs instead of semi automatic
Let’s not forget that FDR had effectively blackmailed the Supreme Court around this time as well
Great video Mr Beat!
Thanks Mummy!
But the m4 is a sbr?????? So does miller mean that the nfa is now unconstitutional?
Hi Mr. Beat, really enjoy your 'Briefs' series. I just got done watching The Staircase on Netflix, and I was wondering if you could cover N.C. v Alford.
Mr beat have you ever thought about teaching in university’s or doing talks at colleges? P.s I really love your videos and hopefully you can compare Vancouver vs Calgary.
Can you do a brief on Coates v Cincinatti(1971)? I was looking up lesser known cases and felt that would be a good case because it's a pretty important 1A case that not a lot of people have heard of that protected "annoying" speech.
That or Wickard v Filburn(1942) which increased the regulatory power of government
Thanks for the great suggestions!
Mr. Beat No problem. Don't have a Patreon so figured I'd help in another capacity
Mr. Beat Also, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier might be a good case too
The big issue with Miller is that everything on the NFA is now super useful in mitary applications. The M4 is not only a short barreled rifle, but a machine gun. Every squad has a destructive device or two at least. And I know that I had an M26 in my guntruck in Afghanistan, and thats a shotgun with a much shorter barrel than Miller's sawn off.
The military is not the same as a militia.
@@Compucles but for a militia to be effective, it needs access to the same arms the military has access to.
@@brianzimmerman4837I don't think there is a rule book on militias. Your perception militias need unfettered access to weapons in order to be effective isn't going to be based on anything since your definition of effective is wildly different from mine.
@@raymonds.9021
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
None of these definitions are well regulated if they don't have access to the arms the military has access to. This is also ignoring the founder's definition of militia which could be seen in the different militia bills they wrote up shortly after the nation was founded which all said the military was all able-bodied bodied free white men between the ages of 18 and 45. With the additions of the 14th, 15th and arguably the 19th amendment extend that to apply to all able bodied people between the ages of 18 and 45.
@@brianzimmerman4837 Even in the bills you mentioned there is clear language that establishes that the militia is under government directive, just like everything else in a civilized society
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.
Now explain it.
@@yuiop6611 A well regulated (property functioning, well armed) militia (comprised of the body of the people, trained in arms, but under strict subordination to the civil power. ie: no rag-tag self made armys) IS necessary to the security of free state, (therefore) the *right of the people* (our right. Not given.. the operative clause of 2a that PROTECTS a right that already existed. We surrendered nothing.) To *keep* (own in our possession, not in an armory) and *bear* (carry on your person) *arms* (weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"arms exports"
Similar:
weapons (of war)
weaponry
firearms
guns
ordnance
cannon
artillery
armaments
munitions
instruments of war
war machines
military supplies)
*shall not be Infringed*
(in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Learn to pronounce
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
Similar:
contravene
violate
transgress
break
breach
commit a breach of
disobey
defy
flout
fly in the face of
ride roughshod over
kick against
fail to comply with
fail to observe
disregard
take no notice of
ignore
neglect
go beyond
overstep
exceed
infract
cock a snook at (my personal favorite... lol. "Thou shall not cock a snook at the people's right to keep and bear arms" Lmao
Opposite:
obey
comply with
*ACT SO AS TO LIMIT OR UNDERMINE (something); ENCROACH ON.*
"his legal rights were being infringed"
Similar:
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
*place a limit on*
encroach on
interfere with
disturb
disrupt
trespass on
impinge on
intrude on
enter
invade
barge in on
burst in on
entrench on
Opposite:
preserve)
@@emmittmatthews8636 this is such a fucking redditor response
@@emmittmatthews8636
All guns should be banned.. they're dangerous
Did the US v. Miller decision help gun rights advocates more or gun control advocates more?
Mr. Beat Gun Control, the modern day left uses this argument all the time
To quote The book Murphy's Law III: Wrong Reasons Why Things Go More: "Hiram's law: Consult the right experts and you can confirm any opinion." IMO, it really helped both sides.
I think it helped both sides from what I can see. It ruled in favor of the government regulate firearms and it acknowledged the individual right to own a firearm to form a militia. IMO from what I know, the Second Amendment does give the individual right to bear arms, but, like every Amendment, is not without reasonable limitations.
It guarantees the right to own military style weapons. A military style sidearm (pistol or revolver), a military style rifle (bolt or semi-automatic), and a military style shotgun (which did exist as far back as WWI and were used to great effect in clearing trenches during raids). To me that means the current argument against banning "assault weapons" (a made-up term) is on its face ridiculous. If anything, you could argue that civilian ownership of small, concealable handguns (typically not used by the military) is not protected by the Second amendment, whereas the ownership of fully automatic, high caliber weapons is. The government's argument against SBS's and SBR's was downright silly, however, as most military forces around the world employ "short barreled" rifles (i.e. less than 16 inches) since they are so useful in close-quarters combat. Incidentally, that makes short barreled firearms especially useful in home defense scenarios. The argument presented by government lawyers was flimsy and I see it as a sham intended to protect the unconstitutional NFA using poorly drafted arguments.
I believe that if Mr Miller was represented by adequate legal counsel, then the court would have likely sided differently. I cannot believe that this case was allowed to be presented to the Supreme Court without fair representation for both sides. Miller was a miscarriage of justice and has perpetuated a corrupt government agency (the ATF) which serves to limit the civil rights of American citizens and has been implicated in some of the most atrocious massacres in modern American history (Ruby Ridge, Waco, and numerous smaller raids on otherwise law-abiding citizens for the crime of not meeting government mandated firearm measurements).
Mr. Beat Worse off, it legalized gun control and the idea of militia are currently ignored.
NFA what trash.
I know it's not super important in the grand scheme of laws in the US, but can you do Nintendo v Universal when Universal tried suing Nintendo over Donkey Kong?
That's a fun one and great suggestion!
Actually just double checked. That one never made it to the Supreme Court.
Wait it didn't? I could have sworn it did
@@iammrbeat Could you do it anyway? Maybe do a Supreme Court Briefs spin-off where you talk about cases that didn't go to the Supreme Court?
@@joshuacoleman8000 Check out Gaming Historian's video on it ruclips.net/video/JeKYPic50h4/видео.html
I think NRA and the people who want to take guns away were right to think what this case meant. Which is why I agree with you that this case doesn't seem to solve the issue. But we got to remember ,guns are only weapons and thus can only kill if they are used to kill, or someone accidentally shot themselves with a gun. We can take away everyone's guns, but that won't make the world any less safer than it was before the time of the first gun.
Um, yes it would, since guns make it a whole lot easier to kill people. Of course, we can't actually take away guns, but the issue is that guns have it much easier for the average person with little to no training to kill someone than any other weapon that came before.
@@Compucles Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey never had training in how to kill people and they're prolific serial killers who killed without guns. Ed Gein was rejected due to a growth above his eyes. Either of them were cops either. Yet they killed without guns. And let's not forget the number of female serial killers in a time where women couldn't serve, not all of which killed with poisons.
Not true, safety mainly stems from
having a good economy, state funding and rights for protection of at risk citizens, ect. Australia got rid of all guns except for very specific purposes and their gun crime dropped insanely, including drastically reducing mass shootings. If you have economic opportunities in a country, violence is much less necessary. America has such high crime because there is still great wealth inequality and the research shows that causes many problems. The most equal countries in wealth tend to be the safest, and have stricter attitudes about guns. Capitalism for all its evils has caused the greatest explosion of prosperity ever seen, and that’s why bands of marauders don’t kill you in the suburbs as in the time around the first guns. If everyone has enough fish, there’s no need to steal your neighbors fish.
@@Compucles Can you promise that government will behave from now until the end of time?
That's another huge factor here whether you like it or not, because the government holds the world record in killing innocent unarmed people..
@@Compucles Using your argument: guns are a tool that make it easier for lesser people to defend themselves against those that wish to do them harm. A grandma could take down a 300 pound man breaking into her house..
They are a great equalizer.
Hi Mr. Beat, great video, I find it odd that only one supreme court case of the 20th century was about the second amendment. Anyway, I hope you have a fantastic and relaxing summer. PS, Will Bush V Gore be uploaded before school gets back in?
Thank you so much Lindsay. Great to hear from you. I'm not sure about the Bush v Gore date yet. When do you go back to school?
Mr. Beat, I get back to school the day after Labor Day.
I will see what I can do
A video covering Pennsylvania V Mimms would be great.
. Anyone that has read Miller vs United States will understand the court ruled the way they did was Miller was dead at the time, so the court had no chose but to rule by default in favor of the government, and the same time raising the question about certain firearms in the hands of the people in times of crises, that still never been truly answered.
United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Page 307 U. S. 176
A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
You can Not TAX an inalienable Right!
The pursuit of happiness gets taxed all the time!
4:32
Damn Mr. Beat. You buff as hell
Damn, look at those arms!
Lol @ the last 30 seconds w/ Sammy!
P.s. mr beat u lookin swole
So they rule that sawn off shotguns can be banned since they aren’t military grade, then rule automatic weapons can be banned because they are military grade.. makes no sense
Thanks. Can you do an episode on the time Kansas City was controlled by gangster Tom Pendergast
?
That's a great suggestion!
Moral of the story: show up in court.
What kind of a name is Heartsill?? I’ve never heard that name before. Didn’t realize that’s a name.
Interstate commerce is an interest balancing tactic, which per Bruen is not Constitutionally authorized.
Short barreled shotguns were in common use during much of our history for militia and military use. The lack of defense council to present the evidence was the only reason such evidence was not brought before the Court.
i wonder if the case would have been different if the defendants showed up.
Do a video on the recent Supreme Court decision with American Express.
The NFA was not actually passed because of the massacre, the bill wasn't even conceived until five years after. The motivation for the NFA came from the Robber Barrons as they did not want the unions to be as well armed as their company men. They came up with the idea that would allow them to afford to buy machine guns etc, while the regular citizen would not be able to afford the 200-dollar tax at the time which was a substantial amount of money.
The Supreme Court never questioned that a couple of know gangsters could be part of "A militia."
Sawed off double barrel shot guns solve all your problems... Wink* wink*
Apparently the law thinks sawed off double barrel shotguns are ineffective against criminals. I was hoping they could cite a study proving this..
2:50 What happens if a supreme court justice is absent, and a case reaches a deadlocke
Then the case is thrown out
mr beat, could you make top 10 best and worst congressmen of all time?
Mr. Beat do a video on if Oklahoma and Texs and Kansas became one State
Why does this video only have 70k views? What kind of world would allow such a thing to exist?
2nd.By the way great videos,and just wanted to ask are you a teacher?
Thank you and yes, I am a teacher
Shorter barrels make your guns louder (ironic because this law also regulates suppressors), less accurate, and less powerful.
Not to mention the M4A1, America's standard issue service rifle, has a 14.5 inch barrel. If only militia appropriate weapons are protected from gun control then hey do we get short barreled rifles now?
Firearms safety is universal by the way, how can you be safe enough to own 1 type of firearm and unsafe to own another?
Shall Not Be Infringed. Clear as glass.
So scalia performed an act of judicial activism in DC v heller ?
No. Scalia more than likely was well aware and also used Miller v United States in the Heller opinion... He used the Miller opinion to reaffirm his Heller opinion..
So, if someone was to put an eleven inch barrel on his/her AR-15, effectively creating a semi-auto version of the standard issue M4 used in USArmy and USMC infantry units, and fail to pay the stamp fee, they would win the case that would follow?
There are also other laws that have limited the kinds of guns allowed for private ownership.
All three of those reasons were later invalidated:
The ATF now routinely voids collection of money to get guns registered and many NFA firearms the government refuses to let you pay the tax.
The law is applied even with zero interstate activity like manufacturing something in a state and keeping it in one state.
The government repeatedly argues for weapons bans entirely on the basis that they are useful for a militia.
I think the US v. Miller decision may yet still be used by either side on the gun debate, as it has in the past. Oh, and the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was responsible not only for the National Firearms Act, but also forced those two musicians to start dressing like women and move to Florida!
Miller does more to destroy gun control then it does protect it
It's interesting watching this after the Bruen decision dropped.
and it is stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that the government does not have any right to infringe upon the Second Amendment right which is any weapon for which the people see fit to protect themselves their property and others. It is plainly stated their government has no authoritarian right to infringe upon
I think DC v. Heller more explicitly said that, for sure
It never says which arms you have the right to bear, and no, people have no need to use overpowered weapons to defend themselves when a more reasonable weapon works just as well, no matter if a few idiots "see fit" to use them.
@@Compucles OVERPOWERED? eXAMPLE PLEASE
@@zabinabatada4682 Assault rifles, semi-automatic and automatic machine guns, bazookas, extreme caliber ammunition, etc. None of those are needed for personal protection nor hunting when more standard guns work just as well or even better.
@@Compucles fortunately, the test is common use, not what the guy on RUclips thinks is sufficient. Semi-automatic rifles being the most commonly owned rifles in the US under any standard of “common use” fall under that category.
Want to ban commonly held arms? Push a constitutional amendment. Until then, learn to accept you don’t have that power with your democrat vote while the amendment stands.
Ironically, the Government will today argue that certain firearms ARE NOT protected by the 2A because they ARE "Military style" weapons.
Miller should be cited more often.
Today a full auto M4 rifle with a short barrel is used in organized malitias all over the world. So there goes that check box, next up if you perform interstate commerce (if you are driving for hire) it is regulatable, however if you don't have a driver's license and you decide to travel in your automobile unencumbered which you have the right to do (Shapiro v thompson) then that will clear that checkpoint and show it was not interstate commerce and you were not engaged in transportation or profits using the public highways. To create revenue from a registration tax strictly to inforce the other 2 is in and of itself nonsense. That's the 3rd checkbox. Case dismissed
Well, the 2nd Amendment never says *which* arms you have the right to bear...
Which means you have a right to bear anything that can be used as arms. From a sharp sticks to tanks. Nuclear arms you might just have to brandish instead though.
@@justz00t48 Initially, yes, but it also means Congress has the power to legislate restriction of which kinds of arms private citizens can use.
@@Compucles Yeah, no. That is a infringement explicitly forbidden in the amendment.
@@justz00t48 Read it again. It says Congress can't restrict the right to bear arms, not *which* arms, therefore those restrictions are explicitly *permitted* by the Amendment.
@@Compucles That is literally as stupid as saying free speech means only the speech permitted by the government. If it wasn't written to mean arms as open ended all arms they would have said muskets and cannons. It's in the bill of rights and these are all restrictions on the state. Further more there was zero restrictions on arms when it was written so it's clear there is no history or tradition of restrictions on arms.
Good stuff. It is argument 3 "The second amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia" They are talking about M4/M16. Jack Miller would have a Mossberg Shockwave "any other weapon". 1934 NFA occurred at the depths of the depression. The market took years from peak of near 400 in 1929 to trough of 84 in 1933. People were in breadlines. The judge is right. 1934 NFA is unconstitutional. 1791-1934 is 140+ years of no gun controls. Text history tradition
Could you make a video on Why U.S.A. withdrew from United nations human rights council
Was there a supreme court decision on the subject? My understanding of the constitution is that the president's powers are explicitly foreign matters.
Shall not be Infringed
Sucks to be Miller...
I really hope that US v. Hoover makes its way to SCOTUS so we can finally put an end to this non-sense almost a hundred years later. That guy is really taking one for the team.
Great video! However, most gun supporters strongly oppose the NFA.
I’m Canadian I love American history more then Canadian history at my school they don’t teach us any American history. The school system is liberal sided and always try to teach us about liberal topics. At my school me and my friends try to organize a protest but the problem is they brain wash kids into thinking what ever the teacher says is right it’s like there not allowed to think and have freedom of speech.
WHATEVER THE TEACHER SAYS IS RIGHT. :)
Lol. You say that like American history is taught without brainwashing. American teachers have agendas as well.
President During this time: Franklin D. Roosevelt
Chief Justice: Charles E. Hughes
Argued March 30, 1939
Decided May 15, 1939
Case Duration: 46 Days
Decision: 8-0 in favor of US
Interesting
This case needs to be reconsidered considering all of the weird circumstances surrounding it
It's blatantly a fix, they wanted the NFA to get confirmed in the Supreme Court so contrived to have the weakest possible challenge "prove" the law was constitutional.
4:24 That comment added insult to injury. Why did you gotta make that comment about it being legal?
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Repeal the NFA
How can the supreme court get away with sidestepping the NFA's constitutionality when half of the current rhetoric regarding it is based on such a clearly terrible case? Especially when you consider that by this case's own precedent the NFA is unconstitutional due to limiting the right to own firearms that should be expected in a modern day military/militia!
Military, yes, militia, no.
Happiness is a warm gun...
Because Miller was dead before it went to court, I think the case shouldn't even have gone to the Supreme Court at the time. Since, you know, there was no Defense. :/
And sadly now leftists use the case to defend their unconstitutional gun control laws. This case was one of the worst Supreme Court cases up there with Dred Scott, Plessy vs Furguson, and US vs Korematsu (you know the case that said it was legal for the government to set up concentration camps)
I think this case needs to be opened and arguments from both sides need to be heard. The National Firearms act is unconstitutional and needs to be heard again in the SCOTUS. It won't happen unless Trump makes it so, which his record on 2A is C
This case is definitely going to be overturned in the near future. The new scrutiny set by NYSRPA vs Bruen goes completely against this ruling. Blue states like New York are going to have to argue their assault weapons ban is "in the spirit and text of the second amendment" which they won't be able to do because it is NOT. The reason they got away with it before is because DC vs Heller had intermediate scrutiny and states like New York could just say their gun law was in the public interest even if it violated the second amendment, they can no longer do this because in the words of Clearance Thomas "Two steps is one step too many"
Clearance Thomas is awesome! Just like Clarence Thomas... expect cheaper!
Lol, sorry.... couldn't help it.
2:20 that’s it Americans have the right to have a weapon of war but they don’t have the right to have a weapon not for war
One of the worst cases. The 2A has shall not be infringed for a reason.
Imagine if criminal acts resulted in law requiring all citizens to register with the local police when they move to a new area and explain their reasons for moving to the police.. Yet we keep setting gun restrictions to protect us from criminals but criminals do not follow the law!
You should do Bowers v Hardwick since it's pride month
Well I already covered both Obergefell v Hodges and US v. Windsor, but yeah I will definitely eventually get to that one
So the Government says the sawed off shotty wasn't registered? Okay, that could be true and is really irrelevant because....
If they knew it wasn't registered, HOW could they KNOW itwas sawed off in the first place?? Not to mention HOW do they know at what point it became sawed off? 😂😂😂😂 I realize the people back then weren't very sophisticated and didn't have an internet, but come on!!!
I agree with Miller on this one.
This case is going to be overturned. There are plenty of AWBs like the NY SAFE act that are going to be challenged under the new scrutiny set by NYSRPA vs Bruen. It's going to be very difficult for the liberal states to argue weapons bans are in the spirit of the second amendment they can no longer just say the infringement is justified because of public safety like they could before
I agree with the US anyone in America should have the right to form a militia and get machine guns but unfortunately that will get you labelled as a terrorist
Moral of the story: Miller might have lived if he had his sawed off shotgun along with his 1911.
Frank Layton went on to. Coach the Utah Jazz check it out its true
oh how time have changed.
One of the worst pieces of legislation in modern history
I’m sure this comment section will be totally civil with no arguments whatsoever
It's si-lome. Not si-lo-um. Geez Mr Beat
Pretty significant miscarriage of justice
This why I'm allergic to Gun Registeration and The ATF. I used to think about working with The ATF during my late teens but not anymore. Sure I could've made a fortune out of ruinining people's rights but no.
I rather be better than The ATF.
smh Mr. Beat dont you live near siloam springs? its pronounced SIGH - LOME springs
No, I don't live near there actually. Thanks for correcting me. I Googled several pronunciations of it and just went with the one that came up the most.
Someone went to the gun show.
Hey you
The graphic you use wouldn’t be classified as a short barrel shotgun funny enough it would be a “firearm” and not an NFA item because it doesn’t have a stock. Does any of it make sense? Not at all but that’s the NFA 🙃
Totally not rigged and totally legitimate
Too bad they didn't have a machine gun
No need to explain, We already know what the 2nd amendment means
It doesn't matter how the court sees the 2nd Amendment because the way that they understand it might be different than the way it is meant to be understood.
It doesn't even matter what the 2nd Amendment means to me, all that matters is what it really means. It is not open up for discussion, the founding fathers wrote it for a particular reason and for a particular meaning. We can debate this all we want, we can even give our definitions of what we think it means and explain how we want it to mean but when we boil it down to the brass tacks it only matters what it really means and why the second amendment was put there and what right it actually backs up. The right to keep and bear arms is simple, if you are a person that became a police officer you would be issued a sidearm and a badge. While you are a member of the police force you are to carry your sidearm and your badge at all times, and when appropriate you are able to bear said sidearm and badge. When you carry a sidearm you are able to keep said sidearm in your possession and to present it or to bear it. While in the membership of a well regulated militia you are allowed to keep an arm and Bear that arm in the protection of your state. How difficult is that to understand it seems self-explanatory to me
This is misinformation.
How so
How fascinating.
What did he say that was false
Shall not be infringed, when they included the second amendment they didn’t mean citizens could have swords and the government could have rifles and cannons. I’m not saying I need a nuke but personal defense weapons of the people should be able to be equivalent to that of the military.