Miller, when read without any bias, doesn't say much at all about the 2nd Amendment. At issue was the status of a sawed-off shotgun. Could it be outlawed by the National Firearms Act of 1934 or was it protected by the Constitution? Miller and his partner were either on the run or dead when the case reached the Supreme court, thus no one represented their side before the Court. Since no evidence was presented to show this weapon's utility to the Militia, the Court could not rule one way or the other on the question of the Militia's use of such a weapon. The Militia in question is clearly the whole population with their own arms; not the National Guard. And had evidence been presented to show the sawed-off shotgun was a suitable weapon for Militia use, the NFA's restrictions against such guns may have been struck down.
This article is interesting, but the author needs to go back to the drawing board and get his facts straight.
And had evidence been presented to show the sawed-off shotgun was a suitable weapon for Militia use, the NFA's restrictions against such guns may have been struck down. It's really too bad that Miller and his Partner weren't big time gangsters, even at the level of Bonnie and Clyde. If they were ,they'd have had Thompsons or BARs, or both. Even the Supreme Court would likely have ruled that it was permissible to "take judicial notice" that those were suitable for military/militia use.