I understand that to be the case and I therefore consider that an infringement. A fully automatic weapon is quite reasonable if you must defend yourself against a mob. If I am correct the National Firearms Act had been tested in court and in one case (can’t recall the name) the ban on sawed-off shot guns was upheld finding that weapon unsuitable for military service (a lie), yet upholding the ban on machine guns, quite suitable for military service.
My issue is with government intervention to bar perfectly reasonable measures for self-defense.
Correction: the _Miller_ case did not address full-auto. The court found inadequate support for whether sawed-offs were suitable for military service (didn’t say they weren’t, just that there wasn’t enough legally objective proof they were) and sent the case back to lower court to gather that info and review in light thereof. As Mr. Miller hadn’t even shown up for the SCOTUS hearing (and was deceased soon thereafter), the matter was dropped ... and the mess it made from being dropped translated into the institutionalized mess we have now, with no judges (SCOTUS included) wanting to come anywhere near it for cleanup.