
	Where results make sense

Topic: United States v Miller

Related Topics

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

List of United States Supreme Court cases

Gun politics in the US

Supreme Court of the United States

First Amendment

Gun Control Act of 1968

Chief Justice of the United States

Miller test

Straw purchase

Obscenity

California Penal Code

Pennsylvania

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

List of United States Supreme Court cases

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

In the News (Fri 17 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Supreme Court of the United States - Open Encyclopedia (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		SCOTUS Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States to interpret and decide questions of federal law.
		The justices (currently nine) are appointed for life by the President of the United States and confirmed by majority vote by the Senate.
		In cases involving a federal agency (for example, the United States Department of Justice), the head of the agency is often named as a party to the case, such as Ashcroft v.
	open-encyclopedia.com /Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States (1866 words)

	Tax Protestors - Marvin D. MILLER v. United States and IRS
		Miller asked the district court to determine the legality of the sixteenth amendment, refund the $75 he paid toward the frivolous filing penalty, and rescind the unpaid balance of the penalty.
		Miller's motion urging the district court to reconsider its order of sanctions--filed over one month after the court entered the order--must be treated as a motion under Rule 60(b).
		Miller and his fellow protesters would be well advised to take their objections to the federal income tax structure to a more appropriate forum.
	www.quatloos.com /taxscams/protcase/miller.htm (2991 words)

	[No title]
		Miller involved the indictment of Jack Miller and a cohort for unlawfully transporting a short-barrelled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
		Miller can be read read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments, e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare, including, of course assault weapons.
		Miller for the proposition that "[s]ince the Second Amendment right `to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." Id.
	www.secondamendment.net /2amd4.html (1186 words)

	United States v. Miller (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		Miller is often cited by gun prohibitionists as standing for the principle that there is no individual right to arms.
		If the Second Amendment guaranteed only a right of state governments to have their militias, the Supreme Court could have resolved the case in a single paragraph by observing that Layton and Miller were not the governments of Oklahoma or Arkansas.
		Miller, the supreme Court said considerably more, offering several paragraphs of historical analysis of the Second Amendment, paragraphs which to this day are the last words the Court has spoken on the Second Amendment's history.
	www.geocities.com /hollywood/academy/9884/bp_Miller.html (1114 words)

	United States v. Causby (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		It held that the United States had taken an easement over the property on June 1, 1942, and that the value of the property destroyed and the easement taken was $2,000.
		The United States concludes that when flights are made within the navigable airspace without any physical invasion of the property of the landowners, there has been no taking of property.
		It stated in its opinion that the easement was permanent because the United States 'no doubt intended to make some sort of arrangement whereby it could use the airport for its military planes whenever it had occasion to do so.' (60 F. Supp.
	home.netvista.net /~hpb/cases/causby-1.html (3399 words)

	Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions
		United States, 233 U.S. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v.
		United States, 445 U.S. [Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and challenged the conviction on various statutory grounds, on the ground that his prior felony conviction was uncounseled and therefore shouldn't be considered, and on constitutional grounds.
		That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.
	www1.law.ucla.edu /~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm (6847 words)

	Encyclopedia: United States Military Academy (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		The United States Military Academy, also known simply as West Point and USMA, is a U.S. military academy and former Army fort.
		The United States military academies, sometimes known as the United States service academies, are federal academies for the education and training of commissioned officers for the United States armed forces.
		Following the Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal and due to concern with sexual assault in the U.S. military the Department of Defense was required to establish a task force to investigate sexual harassment and assault at the United States military academies in the law funding the military for fiscal 2004.
	www.nationmaster.com /encyclopedia/United-States-Military-Academy (4631 words)

	[No title]
		Miller had no resources to finance his argument against the government's appeal and it is doubtful that he had any interest in defending Constitutional rights.
		United States in 1942, the court system conducted a steady degradation of the Second Amendment that was often based on misinterpretations of the Miller case.
		Miller will no doubt be mentioned countless times in the media and it will be misrepresented almost every time by self- serving politicians and biased or poorly informed journalists.
	www.enterstageright.com /archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.txt (1243 words)

	Cite as: 520 A (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		United States, 243 A.2d 54 (D.C.1968) (holding that statute is not void for vagueness); McIntosh v.
		The purpose of the second amendment is "to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia." United States v.
		Therefore, whatever may be said for the second amendment and its reach within the several states, I conclude first that it does not apply to the Seat of Government of the United States.
	www.abanet.org /gunviol/cases/sandidge.html (1174 words)

	US v_Miller (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		United States, 1937, 300 U.S. Ct. 554, and what was ruled in sundry causes aris- [307 U.S. 174, 178] ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2-United States v.
		United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388-the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
		The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.
	www.agh-attorneys.com /4_us_v_miller.htm (1859 words)

	UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
		United States, supra, at 622, which describes that Amendment's protection against the "compulsory production of a man's private papers."[Footenote 1] We think that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the subpoenaed documents to fall within a protected zone of privacy.
		United States, 385 U.S., at 302; Lopez v.
		United States, 409 U.S. But in Couch the taxpayer had delivered the documents to her accountant for preparation of income tax returns "knowing that mandatory disclosure of much of the information therein is required in an income tax return." Id., at 335; see id., at 337 (BRENNAN, J., concurring).
	www.justia.us /us/425/435/case.html (5167 words)

	Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
		Miller, 307 U.S. (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934.
		In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/95-1478.ZC1.html (803 words)

	Miller v United States
		United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act, the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
		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.
		The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.
	www.law.umkc.edu /faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/millervus.html (1398 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas.
		United States, 1927, 274 U.S., 47 S.Ct. 634; Nigro v.
		United States, 1928, 276 U.S., 48 S.Ct. 388-the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174 (2060 words)

	The U.S. v. Miller Revisited
		Miller rests on the Supreme Court's having implied that the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed, when it held in 1856 that the government had no duty to protect the average person.
		It is contrary to the decision in United Statesv.
		Miller was whether or not short-barreled shotguns were, or had been, military firearms, the Court devoted one-third of the text of its judgment to lengthy quotes from early American enactments regarding militia firearms and membership qualifications.
	www.jpfo.org /miller.htm (4701 words)

	Amendments V and VI: United States v. Miller
		Doctor John A. Kearney, a witness for the United States, was asked whether he saw the defendant shoot at Smith.
		The witness objected to answer, and said that he could not answer the question without disclosing a fact which might be material and important evidence to criminate himself as participator in the same offence for which the prisoner then stood indicted.
		He petitioned the supreme court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, at February term, 1822, but it was refused upon the ground that that court had no appellate jurisdiction in criminal causes.
	press-pubs.uchicago.edu /founders/documents/amendV-VI_criminal_processs41.html (289 words)

	United States vs. Miller
		United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotics Act2 --United States v.
		United States (1927), 274 U.S. 289; Nigro v.
		United States (1928), 276 U.S. 332--the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
	www.hoboes.com /html/Politics/Firearms/miller.html (1203 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment.
		United States (1937), 300 U.S. 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act [footnote 2] - United States v.
		United States (1928), 276 U. 332 - the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
	www-2.cs.cmu.edu /afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt (1381 words)

	Tax Protestors - Daniel Thomas Miller v. United States
		For the 1996 tax year, Miller filed a Form 1040, wherein he stated that he had "[w]ages, salaries, tips, etc." in the amount of $132,778.
		Miller apparently did not file a Form 1040 for tax year 1997, since in his Objection to the RandR he took exception to the Magistrate Judge's statement that he filed a tax return for both the 1996 and 1997 tax years.
		Miller's 1996 and 1997 W-2s, which are attached to his Complaints, show that he received "[w]ages, tips, other compensation" from United Airlines during both of these years which is subject to federal income tax.
	www.quatloos.com /taxscams/protcase/miller2.htm (1248 words)

	U.S. versus Miller (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
		It is contrary to the decision in United States v.
		State, 3 Ohio N.P.N.S. 13, that it is doubtful whether a shotgun is within the meaning of the term "arms" as used in the Constitution of Ohio.
	zprc.dyndns.org /legal/miller.html (12213 words)

	THE SULLIVAN PRINCIPLES: PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT FROM CIVIL ABUSE
		If the "state's rights-only" argument of the Second Amendment were to be followed to its logical conclusion, then state governments have a right to maintain military organizations independent from the federal military, and to arm those organizations with nuclear weapons or whatever else the state may choose.
		In Maryland, the state Court of Appeals (the highest Court in Maryland) imposed strict liability on manufacturers of so-called "Saturday Night Specials."[103] While the court's decision was later overturned by the state legislature, the gun manufacturer that was the target of the suit went out of business in the interim.
		The Cruikshank case forced the United States Supreme Court to squarely address the issue of whether the enumerated provisions of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Second and Fourth Amendments, were made enforceable against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Congressional laws enacted pursuant to the Amendment.
	www.guncite.com /journals/kgcivila.html (14608 words)

	Metropolitan Police Department: United States v. Anthony Miller & Kimberly Miller
		In just over one hour, the Millers robbed at gunpoint five victims in three separate incidents at 28th and Woodley Road, the 3500 block of S Street, and the 3600 block Porter Street.
		Through the diligence of the detectives and the patrol officer, defendants Anthony Miller and Kimberly Miller were identified by several of the witnesses, and evidence recovered from the car was identified by one victim as property taken from her in the course of the robbery.
		Faced with mounting evidence, Kimberly Miller entered a plea of guilty on March 11, 1999, to two counts of robbery and was ultimately sentenced to a term of five years incarceration under the Youth Act.
	mpdc.dc.gov /mpdc/cwp/view,a,1236,q,540011.asp (470 words)

	UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.
		Miller, 307 U.S. NOTE: "Demurrer" is a motion to dismiss.
		Marvin Smith, and Clinton R. Barry were on a brief, for the United States.
		United States (1928), 276 U.S. --the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
	www.guncite.com /court/fed/sc/307us174.html (1707 words)

	The Strange Case of United States v. Miller [Free Republic]
		All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
		It was not until the 1990's that legal scholars began to conduct serious research into the intent of the Second Amendment.
		Miller died just before his case came up.
	www.freerepublic.com /forum/a3b6ee6350542.htm (1604 words)

	Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989)
		United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir.
		and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.
		That rule is: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
	www.apfn.net /MESSAGEBOARD/7-24-03/discussion.cgi.45.html (842 words)

	Daniel J. Solove Publications
		This is particularly illuminating, as the Supreme Court in Hamdi v.
		The article contends that the ready availability of public records enables a growing number of private sector organizations to assemble detailed dossiers about people, which are used in a number of disturbing ways that are not consistent with the purposes of freedom of information laws.
		Reforming this problematic state of affairs requires a rethinking of the way the law comprehends the abuse of personal information.
	docs.law.gwu.edu /facweb/dsolove/Solove-Publications.htm (2338 words)

	UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
		Page 307 U.S. A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional.
		Page 307 U.S. ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2-United States v.
		The Nilitia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they
	www.justia.us /us/307/174/case.html (1971 words)

	Gun Laws, Gun Control and Gun Rights
		General materials on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
		United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997) [holding the "Brady Bill" (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922) provision on background checks unconstitutional]
		United States 511 U.S. 600 (1994) [interpreting the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)]
	jurist.law.pitt.edu /gunlaw.htm (1162 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)