Why the MILLER Decision is Defective
Have you ever read the MILLER decision? 307 US 174
Did you ever read the decision US vs MILLER 26 F. Supp 1002? This is the original decision of which the judge supported MILLER.
You see, MILLER was charged with "transporting in Interstate Commerce ....a double barrel shotgun with barrels less than 18 inches in length.."
So I would have to ask, "Was he intending to SELL the gun once he got to Arkansas?" What was the nature of the crime? Did he travel to Arkansas with the gun, intending to bring it back home again? Hmmmm????
The United States appealed to the US Supreme Court because they had not made their case in the District Court.
Now think about this for a moment, who here is the "moving party"? It would be the United States.
As this is true, then aren't there a few things the United States is required to prove as the moving party?
First, isn't the United states required to SHOW that a sawed-off shotgun was NOT a militia type firearm?
Did they do this?
Second, wasn't it required of the United States to show intent of MILLER, that he was going to SELL the shotgun in Interstate Commerce in violation of the stamp tax?
Did they do this either?
Third, the United States had to prove that MILLER was NOT a member of the volunteer constitutional militia.
Nope, not here either.
Think about this, only IF
you create a sawed-off shotgun to SELL in Interstate
Commerce, do you need the tax stamp, or have PURCHASED
No evidence had been entered that proved a sawed-off shotgun, was NOT used by the military nor could be used by the militia.
No evidence was produced that MILLER was going to sell the sawed-off shotgun in Arkansas once he got there.
Lastly, the United States did not OBJECT to the fact, that MILLER claimed he was in the militia.
decision said some things, and didn't say others. The MILLER
decision did not say, that firearms, proven to be part of the
That which is NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED, is allowed.
decision, in my opinion, affirms and supports the right of the average
American to possess firearms for their own defense, as
If you are NOT defined as NOT being a "militia", then the default is you are!
The only thing being argued in MILLER, was a specific type of firearm.
The type firearm was in question;
whether the average American was part of the militia or whether those
type firearms which WERE part of the
What does this tell you then?
It should tell you that: WE are all members of the militia in 1939, even though the National Guard was established in 1903 under the DICK Act; and that those type firearms used as part of the ordinary military equipment, OR, could contribute to the common defense, ARE PROTECTED by the SECOND AMENDMENT.
Don't look at what the Court said, look at what the US Attorney did not prove! He came to the Supreme Court with nothing to support his position!