You're getting far, far ahead of yourself and the Court. No decision has been rendered yet. And the Court has to become quite skeptical of adding more and more strictures to the word "arms" with no justification to do so.
And your statement that the Miller Court wasn't asked about a requirement for militia-membership is false. The prosecution's argument summary clearly contained the statement that only members of a militia should be protected. The Miller Court was free to establish that as the standard if they wished.
We have been over this ground before. You continue to state falsely that the NFA 34 is either Constitutional or unConstitutional without regard to the status of the person being affected by it. That is simply not true.
The Court is perfectly capable of permitting the enforcement of the NFA 34 with respect to some defendants and not others, just as in Miller they were able to permit prosecution with respect to some arms with no question whatever regarding the other arms included in the law.
It IS true. The U.S. Supreme Court could have taken the case and ruled that the tax stamp was constitutional. Could they not have?
In that case, Mr. Miller was guilty whether or not he was a Militia member. If Mr. Miller had purchased the stamp, he could have avoided the whole mess, could he not have? Did Mr. Miller have to be a Militia member to purchase a stamp? No.
Do you not understand the case and what law Mr. Miller violated? Did you think he was arrested for carrying a weapon that was only allowed for Militia meembers? Did you think he was arrested for carrying an illegal weapon?