CASE BRIEF

A case brief should be 1-2 pages. (250-500 words) The brief for each case should be submitted before the date on the work schedule. Be prepared to discuss your brief in class.

Facts: Summarize the facts of the case. List only the essential facts that you need to understand the holding and reasoning of the case.

Procedure: Most of the cases that you'll read in law school will be appellate court decisions. In this section, you want to list what happened in the lower court(s). Do not go into too much detail. One or two sentences are sufficient for this section.

Issue(s): What is/are the question(s) facing the court? Form the issue questions in a way that they can be answered by yes or no.

Holding: How did the court answer the issue question(s)? YES/NO?

Reasoning: This is the most important section of your case brief. Here you want to list the reasoning of the majority in reaching its decision. You can actually be quite detailed in this section. List what the law was before this case was decided and how the law has changed after this decision. Law professors love to discuss the reasoning of a case in class discussions.

Concurring/dissenting opinions: Even though I read the concurring and dissenting opinions, I rarely brief them. However, there are some cases (e.g. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer) where the concurring or dissenting opinions end up becoming more important than the majority's opinions. In such cases, you should add this section to your case brief.

Chapter 3 - U.S. v. Miller and the Right to Bear Arms -

United States v. Miller. Ok, lets back up a little bit and start at the beginning of this story. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first Federal Law enacted which regulated firearms. This act placed a prohibitory tax of $200.00 on sawed off shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches and machine guns. In other words, in order to carry a sawed off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, you had to register your sawed off shotgun and carry with you a stamp affixed written order for it. This law was enacted during the days shortly after prohibition, a time of “gangsters” and bootlegging. It just so happens that machine guns and sawed off shotguns were there weapons of choice. This law was also enacted during a period of time when the federal government was flexing its muscle and expanding federal police power at the expense of the states. They ingeniously did this through enacting federal criminal laws under the guise of the Commerce Clause. There is also a theory that the NFA was enacted to provide jobs to federal agents who were facing unemployment with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. If true, this reason was just secondary as there were other laws being enacted at this time curtailing criminal and acts thought to be immoral under the guise of commerce

Now the actual case of US v. Miller began when Jack Miller, an alleged bank robber and moonshiner, and friend, Frank Layton, were traveling from Claremore, Oklahoma, to Siloam Springs, Arkansas. It just so happens that they were stopped by Federal Agents and arrested for violating the NFA. These two men were brought up on charges before District Judge Heartsill Ragon, in Ft. Smith, Arkansas. My research says that Judge Ragon encouraged these men to plead not guilty and appointed representation for them. Judge Ragon then ruled in Miller and Layton’s favor and declared that the NFA was unconstitutional, a direct violation of the Second Amendment. My guess is that the Feds were waiting for Miller and Judge Ragon was waiting for a chance to declare the NFA as unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The federal government saw this as a threat to their expanding police powers and quickly appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Only Miller did not have representation before the Supreme Court, his side of the case was never heard, no evidence was presented in his behalf, and no “checks and balances” were in place. The Supreme Court simply ruled on what was brought before them. Justice McReynolds stated in his opinion “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that 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 is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.” Justice Reynolds then proceeds to discuss the term militia and what a militia consists of, and that all able body me have a right, maybe even a duty to own firearms suitable for military purpose. The Court’s final decision? “ We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.”

Basically, based on the evidence presented by the federal government, the case was returned to the lower court. What if Miller had presented evidence to the Supreme Court? And did Miller even care? The ruling may have been totally different had the Defendant been committed to the cause and brought a defense before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, by the time the Supreme Court handed down their decision, returning the case to the lower court, Miller was dead from multiple gunshot wounds.

The Second Amendment is a hotbed for controversy due to the two clauses it contains: the Militia Clause and the Right to Arms Clause. The Militia Clause is “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” and the Right to Arms Clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. Is the Militia Clause, the first of the two, dominate over the Right to Arms Clause? Is the Militia Clause what the Second Amendment was all about? Or is the Right to Arms Clause equally as important and independent of the first? This is what the debate on this amendment all boils down to. Intent. Or is the Constitution a living document that grows and changes meaning as society evolves? I personally believe in both clauses, separately, and equal of importance. I believe in a well regulated militia. I believe that individual citizens have the right to bear arms, but I also believe that as our society has changed and that some prohibitive measures are necessary and important for the safety and well being of our society. If I want to own a pistol or rifle I should be able to, and so should you. But I don’t want my son, my neighbor or the local drug lord running around with a machine gun. I don’t want law enforcement gunned down in a firefight by a semiautomatic weapon. I don’t want technologically advanced and superior military weapons in the hands of the nonmilitary. Pistols and rifles, etc. provide adequate protection and allow for the pursuance of legal sport and hunting of game. But anything other than that I have to question the intent. These are my opinions, and thankfully we live in a wonderful country where we have the freedom to express our opinions and debate the merits. So what are your opinions?