Why was US v Miller reversed and remanded ?

[goju]

I guess Im confused. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

[slackmaster]

1. SC was not convinced of the militia-worthiness of Miller's shotgun

If Miller's defense had presented evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun had some value for the preservation of a well-regulated state militia the outcome might have been very different.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one on the Internet.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. well, they used them in vietnam

n/t

[slackmaster]

4. They were used in World War I too

It doesn't matter where or when they were actually used.

A court of law can only consider evidence properly presented to it.

[7th_Sephiroth]

5. meh, shortbarrel shotguns would be wasted on me anyways

i perfer to use rifled slugs, no spread

[FeebMaster]

6. If Miller's defense had been present

the outcome might have been different.

[goju]

7. Bingo!

We have a winner. Congratulations ;)

[iverglas]

8. ooooh

You mean you weren't confused at all??

If you'd announced that there would be prizes, rather than presenting this as an opportunity for a round of repeated head-to-brick-wall contact, well hell, I might have entered.

At least the game was mercifully short, eh?

[goju]

9. LOL

If you couldnt see that post as a challenge, you probably need a vacation ;)

Thanks for (NOT) playing

[iverglas]

11. so, what was to see?

I guess Im confused.

I guess you weren't. Did I miss the "tongue in cheek" stupidfaceiconthing? It looks like this, for future ref:

;^)

Anyone care to venture an opinion?

So wasn't that kinda like me asking for your opinion about what colour my hair is? Looks to me like I just didn't have a chance. The judges will award a prize to the best answer ... oops, to the first answer that was the secret "correct" answer.

You want to venture an opinion about what colour my hair is? Decisions of moi are final, of course. Don't be complaining if I tell you that the correct answer is "ultraviolet", 'k?

[goju]

12. Dont whine

If you dont know WHY it was remanded, just say so. Oh, I guess you already did.

[MrBenchley]

10. And so the brief pretense that Miller doesn't stand

or affrims anything other than a collective right to keep and bear arms ends with a lame whimper....

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[happyslug]

13. Reversed and Remanded for a hearing on the facts.

This is from a paper I wrote:

Miller and the Court Cases

Miller is the 1939 Case involving the Federal Firearms Act. It is an interesting case. If you read it please note the procedure and standard of review the Supreme Court was using in that case.

When Miller was arrested for having a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches (and thus banned under the Federal Firearm Act) he made the contention at his arraignment that the weapon was a militia weapon and thus protected under the Second, THE TRIAL COURT ACCEPTED THIS ARGUMENT AND DISMISSED THE CHARGE AGAINST MILER.

Now, since this was a dismissal PRIOR to any trial, the Rule of Law in such a dismissal is the Judge MUST accept all of the facts in favor of the non-moving party (In the case of Miller the US Government) and rule that even if the Government proved all of its facts the government would still lose. The trial judge ruled that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches was a military usable weapon given that such weapon had ben used in WWI.

On Appeal from that type of dismissal, the same rule applies. i.e. all facts are held in the Government favor. In Miller the US Supreme Court ruled that the FACT that any particular gun had military usability and thus comes under the Second is a finding of fact reserved to a Jury and thus the Trial Judge erred in finding that the shotgun in question had military usability as a finding of law. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial Court with an order that the Trial Court to hold a hearing where a Jury was to decide if the Weapon was a military weapon. Only if the Jury ruled it to be a military weapon was the Judge to rule on the Application of the Second Amendment to the weapon.

In simple terms the Court ruled whether a weapon comes under the Second or not is a question of fact left to a jury NOT a question of Law reserve to A judge.

For some comments on Miller see: (These sites sometime do not work, other times they do. I suspect the Computer they are on gets turned off adn then back on during normal working hours):
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/08 ...

http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9884/bp_Mill ...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme ... /

For the Miller case itself (This site almost always works):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby= ...