The Militia references are solely to support the prosecution's argument -- that the types of weapons protected by the second amendment are only those weapons suitable for a Militia. How else is he to make his argument without referencing the Militia, or the military, or the common defense?
And only one sentence of those seven mentions a connection between the weapon and membership in a Militia. One sentence in the entire brief and you think that's an argument for Militia membership?
Taken out of context, sure, why not. In context, however, and reading the entire brief, anyone can see that the thrust of the prosecution's argument is that only Militia-type weapons are protected.
A significant part of the prosecution's brief is an attempt to challenge the scope of the Second Amendment by use of common law rulings which concern themselves with WHO had a right to keep and bear arms of any type and what activities they might carry out while bearing such arms. That is in support of the argument in the summary that only people in an organized militia are protected.
In postings in other threads you have stated that the Supreme Court IGNORED this argument of the prosecution. Now you claim that the argument doesn't even appear.
I will repeat the sentence you claim is out of context: "Indeed, the very language of the Second Amendment discloses that this right has reference only to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people as members of the state militia or other similar military organization provided for by law. "
Notice that this sentence contains no suggestion that there is any limitation on the type of arms used by people who are members of the state militia or other similar military organizations. The sentence is claiming that ONLY such people are protected, regardless of the arms possessed. It is an argument entirely separate and distinct from the argument that the possession of only some weapons is protected.