[El Gato]

Also, they didn’t note that “common use” should include stuff that _would_ be common if only it weren’t illegal for a long time

Actually they do, at least sort of.

In sum, an “arm” is protected under the Miller test if it is of the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition), and (2) would be useful in militia service. The latter requirement may be in tension with the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, which is not always related to militia service.17 In that respect, Miller may be in tension with itself. There is no justification to limit the Second Amendment’s protection to arms that have military utility.

I would add that there is similarly no justification to limit the protection to arms that have "legitimate civilian uses". I think that in the absence of legal prohibitions M-16s would be in fairly common use.

But I agree that they went too far in "regulation is OK for arms with no legitimate civilian purpose. The second amendment isn't about "legitimate civilian purposes.

[robertpaulsen]

"if it is of the type that (1) civilians would use"

Now you're just making things up as you go.

[ctdonath2]

The brief sorta contradicts itself on “in common use” vs. “militia suitable”. I wouldn’t look for a conclusive view on NFA stuff in this brief.

[jdege]

I would add that there is similarly no justification to limit the protection to arms that have "legitimate civilian uses".

When I consider the list of what I consider "legitimate civilian uses", and try to envision a firearm that would not be appropriate for any of them, I come up empty.

What firearm would you consider to not have a legitimate civilian use?