Most readers of this blog are probably familiar with at least the court citation for US v. Miller, the only Supreme Court opinion directly construing the meaning of the Second Amendment. But what we all didn’t know was the details of the background of Jack Miller himself. Now we do, because of some astonishingly good scholarship about the case and — wait for it — the gun-control conspiracy behind it. Yeah, you read that right. And it’s all fully documented in Brian Frye’s law review article, which you can download right here.
Normally I wouldn’t direct anyone to a law review article unless it was absolutely necessary. They’re generally awful pieces of writing. But this law review article is different. Not only is it the result of actual scholarship — i.e., unlike most legal writings, it actually advances the sum of human knowledge — but also, in the words of a commenter, it reads like a Mickey Spillane novel.
Most readers of this blog have probably also read John Ross’ Unintended Consequences (and if you haven’t, why not? Stop reading my ramblings and go buy it now!), which contains an extended sequence describing the events that led up to the court case itself. Ross included lots of historical detail in his novel, but as far as Miller is concerned, Ross’ version is complete fiction. For one thing, Jack Miller wasn’t a moonshiner. Rather, he was a career criminal, member of an infamously successful bank-robbery gang, and (heh) like me, was 1/8th Cherokee. It’s not Ross’ fault; until Frye did the research, nobody in the 2A community seems to have known or remembered the true history.
More importantly, the new information unearthed by Brian Frye about the gory details behind the Miller case serves John Ross’ purpose even better than the fictional backstory he created for his novel! Time to put out a new expanded edition of Unintended Consequences, John! Frye describes how legislators and judges “teed up” the Miller case deliberately in order to further the cause of gun control and cement the recently-enacted FFA with a favorable Supreme Court ruling. Not only was Miller a compliant government snitch perfect for the purpose, he also conveniently ended up dead by the time the ruling was handed down! Yeah, I think Ross could write a couple hundred new pages with this material….
We owe a debt of gratitude to Frye for doing the research in the first place, even though he’s no 2A absolutist by any stretch of the imagination. Another fifty years on, and this information might have passed into the ether.
In sum, every 2A supporter who wants to know what really happened in Miller, or who thinks he or she might have to debate a gun bigot about the Miller holding, owes it to the entire 2A community to read this article.
Oh yeah, it’ll make your blood boil, too. Pop an aspirin first if you must, but go read!
h/t: Volokh and Instapundit.
UPDATE: here’s a link to a blog with a photo of Jack Miller himself, courtesy of Mr. Frye.
As a 2A defender, I’m not at that level and I do not choose those tactics, Phil.
I consider myself one of those “rough men” that this free society has to tolerate to keep themselves safe enough to maintain that freedom.
We “rough men” don’t get into the debate mode often. To me, there is nothing served by debating, even when we can destroy a GFW’s line. The GFW will never admit to having been beaten. The GFW is not going to convert to being a 2A supporter when he/she is beaten in debate. The GFWs have drunk the Kool-Aid and will remain poisoned by it, except for a very few of them with an iota of common sense tht the Kool-Aid did not wipe out.
How do I handle a GFW? A simple public put-down: “You, sir, are an idiot. With your attitude about freedom in general and firearms in particular, you are not a free man, you only delude yourself into believing that you are. I, on the other hand, am free because I am armed. I am free to make choices in life that you will not be able to, such as the freedom to continue my own life in the face of deadly threats to which you can only succumb. The freedom that you still retain is left to you only at my discretion. You do not count in the grand scheme of things. Go away and ponder your insignificance. I will contine to protect you for the moment.”
David, excuse me for addressing that comment to Phil. I should have looked at the byline before leaping into the content.
My bad.
S’okay. I should probably be flattered at being mistaken for Phil, since he’s got so much more experience blogging than I do.
I have to say that I’ve been able to convert more than a few GFWs. The trick is to find the particular argument that will work to bring them around. For example, at Boomershoot, Phil and I had a series of conversations about gun issues and politics generally with an East Coast liberal youth. He assumed that our worries about gun confiscation were so much paranoid claptrap. When he learned that yes, private citizens HAVE had their guns confiscated by the government in these United States, that changed his outlook. I doubt he’s a 2A supporter yet, but now that he sees gun owners as having “legitimate concerns” that motivate us, I suspect he’s now at least considering gun owners as another “oppressed group” that deserves some liberal compassion.