Miller, 1939: The Case That Said Little

United States v. Miller began with a federal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed registration and tax requirements on certain weapons, including shotguns with barrels shorter than eighteen inches. Two men were charged with transporting such a shotgun across state lines without complying with the Act.

A federal district court dismissed the charge, holding that the law violated the Second Amendment. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The defendants did not file a brief or appear for argument, so the Court heard only the government's side, an unusual situation that commentators have pointed to ever since.

In 1939 the Court reversed. Its opinion reasoned that, without evidence that a short-barreled shotgun had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the Court could not say the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and bear that particular weapon. The case was sent back to the lower court.

The opinion also discussed the history of the militia, describing it as comprising the body of citizens capable of acting together for common defense, who were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

For decades, lower courts read Miller in different ways. Some treated it as support for a militia-only view of the Amendment. When the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, it read Miller narrowly: as a decision about which types of weapons are protected, not about whether the right belongs to individuals.

Miller is a reminder that how a case is argued, and who argues it, matters. It is also a reminder that court opinions are read and reread by later courts. Nothing here is legal advice; for questions about how federal or state firearm law applies to you, consult a licensed attorney.