That was a question I asked you some posts ago.
If the weapon was indeed found to be a militia-type weapon (as the USSC instructed the trial court to explore) and the trial court again dismissed the case (as it surely would), then what?
Would the prosecution see the writing on the wall and not even appeal? Probably. But if it did go to the USSC ... well, a lot of questions would have been answered. In 1938? I have no idea how they would have ruled, though their interest in a relationship to a militia causes me some consternation.
"And finally, how do you account for so many lower courts citing the Miller ruling in their own rulings."
Because they see what they want to see. Just as you see the second amendment as binding on every level of government extending the right to any weapon by anyone anywhere anytime.
I asked you what would happen if the lower court once again dismissed on Second Amendment grounds WITHOUT TRIAL.
The point is that the Supreme Court RULING in Miller is binding on the trial court. The lower court judge has no latitude whatever to ignore that ruling.
I pointed out that the Supreme Court has at its disposal the US Marshall's Service. At the request of the prosecution, the Supreme Court court remove that particular judge. They could have him arrested for contempt and jailed.
Have you ever heard of Judge Roy Moore. He is not a judge today. Perhaps he foresaw the results of his failure to obey a higher court's order. Perhaps not. But he is no longer a judge.
How about Brown vs. Board of Education? Where did the President get the authority to integrate southern schools?
What makes you believe that the Supreme Court would allow lower courts to just ignore their Miller RULING?