Yes, but SCOTUS heard Miller on its merits, rather than stating that Miller the man had no standing. As such, it is an individual right. Further, all of the discussion regarding the particulars of the shotgun in the case had to do with the issue of which weapons are protected for individuals to own. The Supremes (wrongly, IMHO) said that it was basically weapons suitable for increasing the efficiency/effectiveness of the militia (which they identified as all citizens and residents from 17-45). Since there was no "judicial notice" that a sawed-off shotgun was suitable (i.e. since Miller had no attorney representing him), they ruled against Miller and his shotgun.
That, however, raises a really interesting point - SCOTUS effectively said that you've got to have a military weapon or something that functions in an essentially identical manner - and banning such weapons is unconstitutional. So what does that say for Title 18, Section 922(o) (the 1986 ban on additions to the NFA list of civilian held full autos)? It says that it is unconstitutional. Who could deny the utility of an M-16, an M-4 or even an M14 (since it never officially left service, and is now being brought back for the DM's for longer-range engagements)? Heck, I think that you could make a powerful argument that any hand-held firearm ever used by the military was a "militia" weapon, thereby protecting Tommyguns, revolving cylinder shotguns, etc.
I'd like to see Parker get to SCOTUS, and for it to affirm the decision - at least insofar as the 2nd being protection for an individual right...because if it does this, then 922(o) is not long for this world, and we'll be able to buy new full autos for reasonable prices.
Well, Miller wasn't the party taking the case to the Supreme Court, so that is a misunderstanding of what "standing" means. However they did not rule that the Second Amendment did not apply to Miller, but rather that the weapon was not the sort of arms whose keeping and bearing is so protected. Even that is not quite right, they ruled that the lower court should not have ruled that a short barreled shotgun was such an arm, at least without taking some evidence to that effect.
It's really a very weak reed for the advocates of gun control to depend upon.
It wouldn't be just 922(o) it would be all or most all of the National Firearms Act. Having to pay a tax to exercise an individual right is not something the Courts look upon with much favor.