[robertpaulsen]

"The clear implication, then, is that since the only matter the court mentioned as being in factual dispute was the military usefulness of a trenchgun, that would be the only matter a jury would have to decide in order to acquit."

Correct. If the jury was presented with evidence supporting the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, then the tax stamp would have been unconstitutional (implied by statements from the USSC). Meaning the law under which Mr. Miller was charged was unconstitutional. Meaning Mr. Miller would go free.

You'll note. Nothing in that process describes an individual right.

[ctdonath2]

Nothing in that process describes an individual right.

To the contrary: they never questioned whether Miller was part of a militia, or whether that militia had assigned him use of that item. The line of reasoning was completely toward: so long as the item was suitable for militia use, Miller as an individual could individually keep & bear it.

[El Gato]

If the jury was presented with evidence supporting the military use of a sawed-off shotgun

The law does not mention "sawed-off shotguns" only those having a barrel less than 18" long or having an overall lengtj less than 26" (IIRC). How the barrel or stock got that short is of no consequence. (Some shotguns are manufactured that way, mostly for use by police, but they would make dandy home defense weapons as well)

"Sawed-off shotgun" is just a term, like "Assault Weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" or "Cop Killer Bullets" designed to frighten the sheeple and make it easier for the legislators to "infringe" on "right of the people to keep and bear arms.