You don't even know what Miller says, how can I have an intelligent discussion with you?
The Prosecutor did not appeal, Miller did, and he disappeared before the case could be argued. SCOTUS still issued an opinion even though Miller's side never filed a brief. The very fact that SCOTUS ruled on the appeal, rather than dismiss for lack of standing means that Miller had standing to appeal the lower Court's decision - otherwise SCOTUS CAN NOT ISSUE A RULING ON THE MATTER.
The only way Miller would have had standing on a second amendment argument is if SCOTUS recognized that the second amendment protected an individual right. The Government's brief (have you read it, I have) didn't even argue standing, therefore the Government at the time conceded that Miller had standing.
What do you do for a living? Are you on the VPC's payroll?
Are you some kind of socialist attorney? (I hope not, because you really are out of your league in this discussion and you should go back to whatever it is that you do where presumably you actually have some knowledge.)
I'm through with you on this subject - you clearly are either ignorant or a shill for the anti-civil liberties crowd or both. Regardless, you have demonstrated over the years on this forum a refusal to actually learn from people who know more on the subject than you do - including the Fifth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Federal District of the District of Columbia.
Good day.
Bzzzzzzt! Wrong.
"On the same day, Paul Gutensohn received – on behalf of Miller and Layton – notice from the government that it intended to appeal to the Supreme Court. Judge Ragon permitted the appeal. Miller and Layton had 15 days to object to the appeal. There is no record of their having offered any objections.
-- jpfo.org/miller.htm
You're right. You can't have an intelligent discussion with me. You never could.