If you look at what the Miller opinion itself says (as opposed to the syllabus) it does not contradict what I wrote; indeed, interpreting it as saying anything other than what I described would have required a meaningless extra trip to the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court's ruling did not uphold a conviction, but merely allowed a case to proceed to trial court). The government dropped the case against co-defendant Layton (Miller was dead), claiming victory, rather than push on to what would have been certain defeat.
Some people argue that the Court didn't really say the right of free people to own all militarily-useful weapons was protected, but if that were true Layton's case would have gone to trial without his lawyers being allowed to present any evidence of such usefulness. The case would have been appealed and ended upon in the Supreme Court again, still with no evidence of a shotgun's military usefulness but instead with the defendant having tried to present such evidence but having been refused. The case before the Court would thus be the same as what had been presented earlier except for the defendant's disallowed efforts to present evidence of his shotgun's military utility. The court would have then had to either rule that military utility didn't really matter after all (rendering its immediately-previous ruling silly), or that it did matter and the defendant should have been allowed to present his evidence (thus reinforcing the point that military utility is what mattered). Can you think of any reason the Court might have wanted the case to bounce back to it in such fashion?
I'm not too familiar with the Miller case (too old), but did take note that the DC Circuit seemed to clarify an individual right rather than a collective right that I think Miller found. I'm just not sure. But I would think the recent one is a good step, if the USSC agrees with it. In any case, it seems that something definitive will come out of the appeal. I really don't know how much the fringe issues will be covered, such as licensing, carrying, military grade, registration, etc. So I'm sure we'll see more in the future. I cannot envision any court agreeing to substantially cut back on the reasonable restriction concept.