But Congress wasn’t satisfied. They were spooked by years of gangland carnage and wanted a silver bullet to make sure it never happened again. They knew they couldn’t outright ban guns. The Second Amendment was still standing in their way like a stone fortress. So they pulled a sneaky, unconstitutional end-run: The National Firearms Act of 1934.
This wasn’t legislation. It was sabotage. They created a backdoor registration scheme, tied to a brutal $200 tax—a small fortune during the Great Depression—on items like machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and so-called destructive devices. It wasn’t about safety. It was about control. Registration plus taxation equals government infringement. The Second Amendment wasn’t repealed. It was choked out, slowly, under bureaucratic red tape.
The NFA’s constitutionality was tested in a deeply flawed and lopsided case: United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This remains one of the rare moments in American legal history where the Supreme Court made a ruling after hearing only one side—the government’s.
Here’s what happened:
- Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, in violation of the NFA.
- They challenged the indictment, arguing it violated the Second Amendment.
- A federal district court agreed and tossed the indictment.
- The government appealed, and the Supreme Court took the case.
But in a staggering miscarriage of justice, the defendants’ attorney didn’t even bother to show up. He filed no brief. No argument. No defense. Nothing. The Court listened only to the federal government—and then predictably ruled in its favor.
The ruling read:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun]… 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.”
Translation: We only heard from one side, and they said it’s bad, so we’re going with that.
United States v. Miller stood for nearly 70 years as the only major precedent on the Second Amendment. Its vague, half-baked ruling haunted the constitutional rights of gun owners for generations, until finally, clarity arrived.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court struck back. The Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia. It was a thunderclap. Next came McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), which applied that same individual right to the states. And finally, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), obliterated the “interest-balancing” schemes used by states to justify restrictive gun laws. The Second Amendment had risen from its coma.
Now, President Donald J. Trump has pledged to finish the job. He has vowed to defend the Second Amendment and restore it to its rightful place as a shield for the people. He ordered his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to launch an investigation into any and all unlawful government interference with gun rights.
And now, at long last, a direct challenge to the National Firearms Act itself has been filed in federal court. The lawsuit puts Bondi at a crossroads. Will she stand up for the Constitution and join the plaintiffs, effectively killing the NFA once and for all? Or will she betray the Bill of Rights and defend this archaic, unconstitutional law?
If she joins the side of liberty, it will mean the end of federal enforcement of the National Firearms Act. But the battle won’t stop there. The Gun Control Act of 1968—another bloated relic of authoritarian ambition—is already in the crosshairs. Its days, too, are numbered.
The Second Amendment is not a privilege. It is a right. And it’s time to stop asking permission to exercise it.
Comments