I don't think that the processing sites mean anything. Uncle lives in DC, and thus all agencies do as well. Besides, it is my understanding that every case involving the US government gets heard in the DC circuit.
...but I'm also wondering if Kennedy's statement “Miller may be deficient” isn't more ominous than welcoming. He plainly noted a potential for a decoupling of the 'militia' phrase from 'the people' phrase and asked if there were two rights there or just one. He might have it in mind that Miller didn't have recourse to a defense under the Second Amendment because he wasn't in 'the militia', never mind how short or long his shotgun was.
This could end up as a split decision: The people have rights to civilian weapons, the 'militia' has rights to militia weapons like your post-'86 M16.
I agree with some of your questions about Kennedy's motives/thoughts. However, the militia of the Revolutionary War and as it existed after the passage of the 1792 Militia Act had weapons that were the equal of those of the armed forces. In fact, the militia was conceived of as the true armed might of the nation, and the hope among most of the framers was that we'd have a small professional army (one not capable of taking over or significantly influencing the government or even any state) as a core used to train a mass militia (one that provided its own weapons, by the way) in the event of invasion or insurrection. That's what happened in 1812, 1848 and the Civil War. One could also say that it happened in 1898 vs. Spain (TR's Rough Riders largely trained and outfitted itself, with vets of the small professional army brought on to train the volunteers). In WW1 and subsequently, soldiers generally didn't bring their own weapons into battle or training (with, of course, a few exceptions).
I don't know how you can uncouple the militia from the people, not looking at the historical record and the writings of the Founders. Here's a pertinent example:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. George Mason
This is, I believe, the basis for the Miller Court not even examining whether Miller was part of the militia - because it didn't occur to them to do so, because the answer was so obvious. Kind of like a finding that the cloudless daytime sky is some shade of blue.
Also consider that full autos have NEVER been banned under federal law, and that there are currently some 160,000 full autos in civilian hands without a daily (or even yearly) massacre. I don't think that the Court can ratify the principle that the military is supposed to have a permanent legal advantage over the people from which it is drawn, and against whom a potential tyrant would use it. Besides, the 2nd Amendment says "ARMS" - which is plainly, in view of the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause and our history, not limited to hand-held firearms.
Since you and I seem to be on the same wavelength here, try this one on for size:
In my state's Federal circuit court, we have the Stewart Ruling -- United States v. Stewart (2003). In Stewart the 9th Circuit Court held that homemade machine guns can not be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause since they did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The ruling was appealed to SCOTUS in 2005 and they vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, remanding the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 2005.
SCOTUS ruled in Raich that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction.
Guess who the petitioner for US vs. Stewart is? Solicitor General Paul D. Clement.
Since 2004, there has been no resolution on US vs. Stewart.
Ponder this for awhile and tell me what you think it means.