Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged with violating the Nation Firearms ACT of 1934 (“NFA”). They had carried a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun across state lines, creating a circumstance of interstate commerce. The defendants believed that the NFA violated their constitutional rights. The district court agreed with Miller and Layton and dismissed the case. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the ensuing case, U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that the NFA did not violate the Constitution. In a reversal from the district court decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that possessing the gun in question did “not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Therefore, the defendant’s possession of the gun was not protected by the Constitution, and their rights were not violated. -Oyez.org _

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both U.S. v. Miller (1939) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of McDonald v. Chicago led to a different holding as the holding in U.S. v. Miller.

(C) Describe an action that members of the public who disagree with the holding in U.S. v. Miller could take to limit its impact.