Due to the absence of any introduced evidence showing the utility of Mr. Miller's gun to a militia, the Hughes court majority concluded that it had no utility and remanded the case back to the appeals court. It did not render a decision that can reasonably be said to reject or uphold either the individual right position or the collective right position. It merely dealt with the narrow issue of the utility of Mr. Miller's short barrel shotgun as a militia weapon or accoutrement.
The thing that has made Miller such a painful thorn in the side of gun rights advocates is not what it actually said, it's the misrepresentation of the scope of Miller and the intentional misinterpretation of the decision by liberal lower court judges that has for all practical purposes nullified the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Why was this utility important to the U.S. Supreme Court, in your opinion? What were they going after? Why did they ask the question?