An Aarkansas federal district court charged 2 people with violating the national firearm act (NFA) when they transported a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun. These two people whose names are jack miller and frank layton said that the nfa violated their second amendment right to keep and bear arms.Miller argued that they should be able to carry a shotgun with them. Some of their reasonings were they had a rough past so people could be looking for them and the shotgun was for safety reasons. Another argument they had was that it is one of their rights according to the second amendment with the right to bear arms. They used the clausepart “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” to back up their argument.The other side used a different part of the second amendment to support their argument which was that Miller should not have had a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. The part this side used was “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..” This part means that if there is a well controlled military, the people should not need to bear arms and have weapons such as a dangerous sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. They argued that the rights of states to form militias, not the rights of individuals to own guns, were the focus of the Second Amendment.The supreme court decided that the second amendment does not guarantee someone the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. The vote count was 8-1. The court said that holding a sawed-off shotgun was unprotected by the second amendment because it had no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”If i were a justice of the Supreme court I wouldn’t have agreed with miller and would have voted for the US because the second amendment clearly states that if there is a well regulated militia then there is no need for weapons. Also when they say ‘weapons,’ they must be implying a handgun or maybe a pistol but not a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun.