Great.
Is it a fact that the militia clause in the Second Amendment does not limit the right protected?
Is it a fact that the US Supreme Court in Miller erred by inventing a suitability test for arms which is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment.
It is a fact that the lower federal courts have not ruled that way. Even the 5th Circuit in Emerson said the right may be restricted -- and that's the favorable ruling!
"Is it a fact that the US Supreme Court in Miller erred by inventing a suitability test for arms which is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment."
Erred? No, they didn't. Keep in mind that in Miller the USSC was only exposed to the governments side of the case. The government stated:
"... the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals."
"Thus in Aymette v. State [2 Humph., Tenn.154 (1840)], supra, it was said (p. 158):
"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.'" (Id. at 18-19)."
So, the USSC remanded the case to determine if the weapon was of a type that could be used by a militia. A resonable request.
Not to you, of course.
The USSC should just assume the sawed-off shotgun was used by the militia. Besides, who cares? As we all know, the second amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear any weapon for any purpose anytime and anywhere, with absolutely no infringements, 'cause that's what it says .... if we leave off some words .... and if we treat the second amendment differently than all other amendments .... and if we listen to the NRA not Sarah Brady ....