While its logic flows from a state (and by extension, the country) having a militia (all able bodied, says the opinion), the conclusion is that a state may NOT prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. Doing so would deprive the feds of the resource of a capable, armed populace. The conclusion isn't that the states can't disarm an organized militia - its that the states can't disarm the people.
My point was that the Courts have ignored this recitation in Presser, and instead have cited Presser for the proposition that states are free to prohibit the people from keeping and/or bearing arms. They ignore the passage I cited, and do so knowing that few people will read the case to see if it says what SCOTUS claims.
See too, in Heller, "Miller was convicted" as the lever to uphold prohibitions on civilian ownership of M-16 rifles. Utter corruption, and deserving of contempt.
Wasn’t the case you referenced the one involving militias formed by German socialists in the late 1800s.
Reading the US Constitution I don’t believe the “state” mentioned in the 2d was the federal government but the states in the Union.