A fine new article forthcoming in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty provides fresh insights on the Supreme Court's last major gun control case, U.S. v. Miller (1939). For example, he shows that the case was brought by the federal government as a test case to quell Second Amendment popular opposition to the Attorney General's efforts to create federal handgun control. The federal district judge who wrote the one-sentence opinion declaring the National Firearms Act to violate the Second Amendment was a gun control advocate with strong political connections. The prosecution of Miller was perfect as a government-initiated test case, since Miller had an established record as "a pliable snitch" who would cooperate with the government, ensuring that the Supreme Court saw no meaningful opposition to the government's position.
Frye also argues that although Miller was written by the now-reviled Justice McReynolds, the meaning of the opinion is fairly clear, recognizing the individual right to arms as a common law right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, while still permitting reasonable gun controls.
The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller:
2. Government playing with courts is a common game. I was once in a meeting with Solicitor General types, where they proclaimed their goal was not to protect clients' interests (as I, poor munchkin, was doing) but to "guide the evolution of caselaw."
In the absence of any evidence...
That's not proof either way. My understanding of Miller is that the Scotus sent it back to the lower court for a determination as to whether the gun was a "militia-type" weapon or not, and the case died there.
Fascinating article though. You don't read many law review articles that read like Mickey Spillane!
Be inspired by Frye's example -- it sure seems that nobody knew the backstory of Miller until Frye did the research and put it all together.