Gun Control Laws:
What Gives Congress the Right? >Page 1,
2, 3
The Supreme Court Finds Otherwise
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Arkansas Court ruling and in
deciding the case of United States vs. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), clearly established the right and authority of the U.S. Congress
to enact laws controlling receipt,
possession, and transportation of firearms. (See: Details
of the Miller case)
While the Court's 1939 decision specifically upheld a federal law requiring registration of sawed-off shotguns, it also issued a legal definition of the scope of the Second Amendment as it applies to the constitutionally conceived militia that still stands today.
In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that a "well regulated militia" did not require sawed-off shotguns to properly carry out its constitutionally defined duty.
"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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)
The statement above establishes the government's right to limit what types of firearms the public can legally "keep and bear."
For a federal gun control law to be successfully challenged as violating the Second Amendment, it would have to be proven that the law adversely affects the states' ability to raise and equip a militia.
The "Militia"
In the Miller case, the Court also takes the opportunity to define the
"militia" considered by the Founding Fathers in creating the Second
Amendment.
"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." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)
"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." -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)
"'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.'" -- U.S. v. Miller (1939)
No Effect On the States
No matter how the Second Amendment is interpreted, it does not prevent states or
local governments from enacting and enforcing their own gun control laws.
Next page So, What Good is the 2nd Amendment? >Page 1, 2, 3
Online Poll: Should Congress enact laws requiring trigger locks and criminal background checks at gun shows?
Gun
Control Laws In Canada
Canadian gun laws are among the toughest in the world and statistics
indicate they are effective. Could laws like these be in the future of U.S. gun
owners?
Election
2000 Resources
Information on candidates, parties, dates, issues and organizations, from your
About.com Guide.
US Government
Job Openings
Links to vacancy announcements at dozens of agencies and military branches.
Huge Index of
Government Web Sites
One of the largest lists of agencies, bureaus and offices on the Web.
More
Recent News and Features
The latest news and features on US Government Info/Resources.
