Just as there was no statement that he need not be a member. The case never proceeded that far.
This is not about how far the case proceeded. There was never a trial because the trial court judge dismissed the case as a violation of the Second Amendment.
Now you are claiming that the Supreme Court erred by remanding only on the basis of the weapon's usefulness and in not specifying that proof of non-membership in a militia was also a requirement for prosecution.
Or do you recognize, as I do, that the Supreme Court was determined to rule against Miller, regardless of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Miller was a person and the people's right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. What is your explanation for the Supreme Court remanding on one issue but not on the other?
Was it so difficult for them to conceive of the possibility that the trial court judge would have to dismiss due to lack of evidence regarding the weapon?
Please describe, in light of the remand, how Miller's trial would have proceeded, who might have appealed, and what further rulings the Supreme Court might have made.