Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sawed off shotguns now legal?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Fisherman_48768, Oct 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fisherman_48768

    Fisherman_48768 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Thumb of Mich.
    When the Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that Miller couldn't own a sawed off shotgun because the government attorney said the military didn't use them therefore Miller as a member of the 'militia' couldn't own and possess one either.
    Well things have changed, the court ruling didn't change, the 2nd Amendment didn't change the technology and application needs changed. The US Military is now issuing Remington 870MCS sawed off shotguns (10" bbls and pistol grip stock).
    So my question is since the Gov't lawyer said that the military didn't use sawed off shotguns as the prosecutions argument against them. Therefore, the 'milita'(you and I) didn't get to use them either but now that same Gov't is issuing sawed off shotguns with short stocks is the SC ruling now void?

    The Miller v US case was decided soley on the sawed off shotgun issue and the military usage of them.
     
  2. AntiqueCollector

    AntiqueCollector Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    842
    The government lied then to the courts, they used short barreled shotguns in WWI.
     
  3. Kimber1911_06238

    Kimber1911_06238 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    AZ
    the gov't lied? I'M SHOCKED!!! Don't count on that changing anything
     
  4. Fisherman_48768

    Fisherman_48768 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Thumb of Mich.
    I know that, you know that but apparently none of the Justices at the time had served in the military. Now we have their ruling to live with and the gov't issuing sawed off shotguns to military members. What does this do to the militia clause? I personally could care less about owning one but the argument presented by the gov't has hamstrung gun owners long enough because it was based on a lie.
     
  5. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    Chop off your 870 to 10 inches, take a picture, mail it to ATF and ask them. :)
     
  6. sig226

    sig226 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    Palm Beach County
    The US military had issued them long before the stupid NFA and the Miller case. The Miller case did not say that Miller could not have a sawed off shotgun (Short Barreled Shotgun.) It said, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    Miller was convicted at trial and his lawyer appealed on the grounds that the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment of the United States Constitution. The appellate court agreed with Miller. The court didn't hear arguments. It tossed the conviction and the N.F.A. along with it

    The Supreme Court didn't say much of anything in the Miller case. What they did say was this, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

    The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."


    Thus, the Miller case actually says that the National Guard IS NOT THE MILITIA and that the second amendment does not apply to the National Guard.

    Then the justices reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for further hearing. To remand a case is to send it back to a lower court so the lower court can gather more information. But courts will not hear cases where there is no issue to decide. So the Supreme Court can't say that the N.F.A. is unconstitutional, but we want the lower court to listen to oral arguments to give us more information. The lower court would refuse to do it as it would be a waste of time. So the Supreme Court has to reverse it, then they can force the lower court to reexamine the case and demonstrate the grounds for the lower court ruling.

    Notice that the Supreme Court decision does not say that a sawed off chotgun has no military use. It says, "In the abscene of any evidence . . ." Therein lies the rub. The court invited Miller to show evidence that the N.F.A. violated the second amendment because a short barreled shotgun was a weapon used by the military. But Miller was dead, and no further hearings were held.

    The Supreme Court cowed to Franklin Roosevelt, who had threatened to add more justices to the court in order to pack the court and get his own way. They evaded revoking an enumerated right in the constitution, issuing instead a piece of garbage ruling that is misinterpreted every day.

    Of course the sawed off shotgun is part of the ordinary military equipment. The National Firearms Act specifically exempted the army and the police (paramilitary organizations) from the ban on them. The N.F.A. is illogical on its face, but no one ever got to argue the point before the court after the court enforced the bill of rights on the states.
     
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    First, the government didn't say that shotguns had no military/militia use.

    Miller had filed a demurrer motion to dismiss his charges under the Second Amendment. The judge (a longtime supporter of gun control) agreed and said the 1934 NFA violated the Second Amendment. Under the procedural rules at the time, the issue went directly to the Supreme Court. There was no evidence of any kind because the motion had been filed prior to trial and a demurrer motion did not require any evidentiary hearing.

    The Court stated that it was "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    Miller died before the trial was remanded to the lower court and so no evidence was ever offered. However, you might want to look at two Supreme Court cases: U.S. v. Staples and Thompson Center Fire Contender, before you go cutting any shotgun barrels.
     
  8. Shweboner

    Shweboner Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    Newberg, OR
    Make sure the return address is written clearly:neener:
     
  9. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,809
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    Mmm, welllllll.... Depends on your definition of "short barreled." WWI trench guns had 20" bbls, which would be perfectly legal under the NFA.
     
  10. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    Does this decision not then mean that any weapon (such at the M16 rifle) that does have a relationship with a well regulated militia, is protected by the Second Amendment?
     
  11. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Huh? Where does it say that in Miller? (Rhetorical question)

    Actually, the Supreme Court in MARYLAND v. U.S. (1965) held, "The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.")

    In 1990, Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the Court explains that when in the service of the states, National Guardsmen function as militia. Once a member of a State Guard unit is ordered into active military service of the United States, that person is no longer under the command of, or serving, a State Guard unit (until they are relieved from federal service), but is now a member of the army.
     
  12. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    Yes, as well as pistols, Liberator handguns and toothpicks.That is why lower federal appeals courts freaked out in 1942.

    Look up "US v Tot" and "Cases v US" both 1942 decisions.

    http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/

    Rick
     
  13. MisterPX

    MisterPX Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    759
    Location:
    Amerika's Doyleland
    The problem is, that Miller didn't show up to challenge the courts. If he would have, things, NFA, would be presumably different today.
     
  14. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Military issued short barrelled shotguns, M16's, etc. mean absolutely nothing to gun owners today. A SCOTUS ruling doesn't change its meaning because someone wishes it would. The only thing that will change the meaning of the Miller ruling is A NEW RULING that supercedes all or part of it.

    And anyone holding their breath waiting for the NFA to be overturned is gonna suffocate and die. It ain't gonna happen. SCOTUS will rule very narrowly on the Heller case. The 2A will be ruled to be an individual right, as we all believe it to be. But that right will be subject to "reasonable" regulation, which many of us consider unconstitutional.

    Many think that any regulation constitutes an "infringement". They are wrong. That's simply not the way the law or the constitution work. All of the rights in the BOR are subject to some restrictions. The 2A will be no different.

    The thing to watch for in Heller is whether the Court rules that any gun control law must pass a test of "strict scrutiny". This means that the law should be written as narrowly as possible, and that the government needs to show a clear relationship between the law and the stated goal. IOW, if the law cannot be shown to reduce crime, for instance, it would fail the test. This would be good for us, because as we all know, there is almost no evidence that gun restrictions reduce crime.

    This would open the door for challanges to many existing restrictions, especially restrictive carry permit policies as exist in some states.

    There are other standards that the Court could apply that are less demanding than strict scrutiny, but IANAL and I do not know what they all are. But strict scrutiny is the standard frequently applied to laws that would restrict elements of the BOR, so we have a chance that SCOTUS would apply that standard in this case.

    One likely result will be a narrow ruling that allows for states to determine policies towards carrying handguns, (for now) but affirms the right to own them. I expect that state FOID cards and even registration requirements will be left intact. As long as the state/local law doesn't ban ownership, SCOTUS is going to leave it alone for the time being.

    But a good individual rights ruling in Heller could set the stage for more challanges to more laws at a later time. Perhaps restrictive policies for issuing carry permits may be shown to fail the test. (Johnathan Lott's work could be key here.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2007
  15. shield20

    shield20 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    789
    Location:
    New York
    My take based on the wording of the ruling is that if Miller had been caught with a BAR instead of a SOS, M16s, M4 etc would be indeed be legal, as that part of the NFA would have been deemed unconstitutional.
     
  16. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Rest assured that at ~some~ point, after the individual nature of the right of arms is affirmed, it will be a legal strategy to bring into judicial notice the fact that the military issues short barreled rifles, shotguns, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and grenades, indeed, what Tenche Cox referred to as " every other terrible implement of the soldier".

    The reason that point isn't being pushed is that it doesn't make sense to do it with something as basic as the individual nature of the right in legal limbo.

    As much fun as it would be to see the antigunners soil themselves on the topic, the thing is that lots of our society who currently aren't aligned with the forces of organized gun bigotry would soil themselves too, and find themselves in sympathy with our enemies.

    Not a smart play @ this stage of the game, no.
     
  17. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Yea that whole being dead thing really messes up an evening huh? :)
     
  18. Beatnik

    Beatnik Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    552
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    So....
    I thought that sawed-off shotguns, like automatic rifles, are legal, but require the tax stamp.

    I thought there was a bigger problem - Congress didn't have any right to ban them, so they didn't ban them, they just made the bureaucracy incredibly difficult to deal with.
     
  19. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Possibly. But I do not think that effort will get anywhere.

    Stare decisis will come into play here. I would say it is a certainty that this or any future Court would regard the status of the NFA as "settled law". Overturning it would create huge disruptions in the gun laws at every level of government.

    It would be as if the Court suddenly ruled that the government had no right to issue paper money, and that gold and silver specie were the only acceptable forms of legal tender.

    They ain't gonna do it.

    Furthermore, NFA weapons are not banned. You can own silencers, short-barreled weapons, machine guns, etc. as long as you pass the background check and pay the transfer tax. It will be very easy for the Court to determine that these restrictions are "narrowly tailored", "reasonable", and meet the requirements of "strict scrutiny".

    For my own part, I would be happy to see mandatory "full faith and credit" applied to CHL's. But even that modest step will be a long hard slog.
     
  20. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    I remember first reading US v Tot and being struck by the irony of the date.
     
  21. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Excuse me, but you cannot own ANY machine gun manufacturered after May 19, 1986 (Title 18, Section 922(o)). It doesn't matter if you pass the background check, pay the tax and get the permission of the Chief LEO in your area. This ban is identical in form to the DC handgun ban, wherein DC residents are prohibited from owning any handgun not registered before the effective date of DC's law during 1976...which ban was ruled to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment by the DC Circuit Court earlier this year (US v Parker). Of course, this case is on appeal to the USSC, and we'll likely see within a month or so if the Court will grant Cert. or not.

    If the Court lets the ruling stand by not granting Cert., or if it takes the case and affirms the ruling, then the BAN on post '86 full autos will be illegal...all someone will need to do is bring a case against the BATFE after having been denied on their Form 4. The real beauty of the Heller case being in the DC Circuit is that one party to any potential case "lives" in DC - the federal government. Any citizen from any state can bring such a suit. I think it'd be wonderful if someone from the 5th Circuit (the only one besides the DC Circuit that ever said that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right) and someone from the 9th Circuit (which vehemently denies any individual 2nd Amendment rights) both brought a case. Hell, get one person from every Circuit to bring the case, then have them join together when they don't get the results they want.
     
  22. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    The court may determine that, but such a determination would fly in the face of any reasonable understanding of the word "infringed", and also fly in the face of the principle that you may -not- tax the instrumentality of a fundamental right.

    As to the overall point, that the court would probably -not- engage in a wide ranging, tumultous all at once ruling, that is quite right. Like brown vs board of ed, this fight will be won in a sequence that will drag on for years.
     
  23. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    One the arguments put forth in this long fight has been that if the the city is legally allowed to ban a specific class of "arms" (handguns), then nothing prevents them from banning and entire class of arms ( firearms )... or swords, flails, pikes, daggers - you name it. That leads to an impossible legal outcome.

    The supreme court would have to address this specific point for there to be even a glimmer of hope that the post 86 restrictions treaded on prohibited (by the Constitution) ground. The result of the DC case is what is important NOW. Concentrate on that.

    IMO, the net result of any ruling overturning the '86 ban will be obfuscation by BATF since NFA would not have been overturned. They will send their storm troopers to Congress and demand they repass the restrictions, while at the same time freezing all Forms 1-4 processing until the new and improved law were passed.
     
  24. littlegator

    littlegator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    508
    Location:
    Vegas
    I guess it's time for me to scrounge up some dough and get that Benelli M4 with collapsible stock and shortened barrel then?
     
  25. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    Stare decisis. It doesn't matter what is a "reasonable understanding of the word infringed". The Court is not going to declare paper money illegal no matter WHAT the constitution says, and they are not going to overturn the NFA.

    And different people can honestly disagree on what "infringed" means. I know of people who think that ANY regulation amounts to an infringement and hence, is unconstitutional. I myself believe that requiring a license to carry concealed is NOT an infringement, so long as the license is "shall issue" to any law-abiding adult. I have no problem with criminals and lunatics being ineligible to carry concealed, or even to own guns.

    But as always, what matters is not my opinion or yours, but the opinions of the nine justices that make up the SCOTUS.

    1) There is a big difference between guns registered before a certain date and guns manufactured before a certain date. The situations are not identical.

    2) I am pretty confident that the Court will grant cert.

    3) I would have preferred to wait until Stevens or Ginsberg retired before bringing this case to SCOTUS, but I think our chances are pretty good for a favorable ruling even with the current Court.

    4) It is possible that the ban on post-1986 full autos may be lifted as a result of some future lawsuit. But trust me when I tell you that the NFA is here to stay. Settled law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page