I’m no lawyer....but I think the decision was narrowly determined that a NON-MILITARY firearm could be regulated....in this case a sawed off shotgun.....but my point was that the TAX was never challenged on the basis of it being a tax. But I could be wrong.
If that was the point you’re trying to make, there’s nothing there I can argue against.
What is non military about a saw off shotgun.
They have been in the military before rifles were.
That was the narrow decision, but there was no testimony on the lower court level about the firearm in question having any "utility as an arm that could aid the militia in its duties" - and hence the desired result was returned. Nor was there any evidence (i.e. "judicial notice") presented on the Supreme Court level, because Miller was not represented (having been murdered while the case wound its way through the courts).
That was as made-up of a result as the Obamacare case - the 2nd Amendment references "arms" and not "militia-quality arms" or any other qualifier. In point of fact, there were military veterans on the Court, and they knew very well that short-barreled shotguns (A.K.A. "trench-brooms") were used extensively by the Army and Marines in WW1. The Court was as full of lying, disingenous, corrupt Constitution-shredders (but I repeat myself) as it is right now.
FYI, were the Miller case to be heard now, there'd be reams of evidence that FULL AUTG firearms (as well as short-barreled shotties) had excellent utility, such that the entire 1934 NFA would get tossed out on its arse...if we had an honest Court. Since we don't, it'll stay on the books as law. Whether people will choose to obey the dictates of a corrupt judiciary that is playing fig-leaf for a corrupt legislature and a corrupt executive is another matter altogether.