>>>Although, if properly interpreted Miller doesn't contradict Presser at all. The court simply said that no evidence was presented to show that the firearm in Miller's possession had any utility as a militia weapon.<<<
Properly interpreted, Miller concludes that every citizen has a right to keep and bear and M-16.
Right. But the problem is that virtually every lower court has misinterpreted Miller, and knowingly and deliberately misinterpreted IMHO. Simple logic would lead any unbiased court to see that the only reason Miller was decided in favor of the prosecution was that no evidence was presented to prove that Miller's weapon did indeed have utility as a military weapon. The decision was based almost solely on the court's ignorant assumption that Miller's shotgun was not suitable for militia use. The language used in Miller clearly indicates that the court would have upheld the lower court's innocent verdict if it had been shown evidence that the the shotgun in question was suitable for militia use.
The U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. I do concede that, properly interpreted, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear a full-auto M-16 ... as a registered member of a state Militia (which no longer exists).
As to where the arms would be "kept" and when they may be "borne", would be a state issue.