Well, a “right” doesn’t make much sense if it depends on whether the government (fed or state) has selected a person to exercise that right - does it?
In _Miller_, there was absolutely no discussion about whether Mr. Miller was part of a militia of any kind; to the contrary, his weapons possession charge plainly stemmed from criminal activity. If the Supreme Court, and any court along the path of that case, had ANY inkling that the 2ndA had the limitation you refer to, that would have been the first thing used to throw out his appeal. The question addressed at length was not whether Mr. Miller was one of “the people”, but whether the weapon in question had any militia suitability.
In other Supreme Court cases oft recounted (names escape me at this millisecond, you know them), there are plenty of direct and indirect references to the 2ndA applying to a whole lotta people that you put outside the “white male landowner” and “state militia member” limitation.
You are correct. I meant to say the protection of that right.
"In _Miller_, there was absolutely no discussion about whether Mr. Miller was part of a militia of any kind"
Correct. The case wasn't about Mr. Miller. The case was really about the weapon itself.
"his weapons possession charge plainly stemmed from criminal activity."
His weapons charge was the criminal activity -- he was not charged with the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. He was charged with the interstate tranportation of a sawed-off shotgun without a tax stamp.
He claimed that a tax stamp on any weapon was an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.