You are correct in post 20.
The lawyer for the government stated that "shotgun serial number XXXXX was never in use by the military and thus does not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment."
Unfortunately, there was no opposing side to argue the point since it is believed that Miller had died by that point.
However, if you read the entire Miller case, it does affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms of "modern military nature". Hence, the 1986 MG ban is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment according to the Miller decision. Unfortunately, because of the poor wording of the decision, the anti's try to use it and it is misrepresented quite often.
Mike
I disagree completely. The wording of the decision makes it quite clear that "every male physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" was expected to appear carrying his own arms. That very clearly included Miller. The "collective right" was invented as a smokescreen by lower courts to hide the facts of the ruling, but the ruling is not badly worded. I believe that later courts wanted to support the "collective rights" interpretation but there was no way to rule on a relevant case without revealing the lies of the lower court.
What was badly decided by the Miller court, was that the Second Amendment includes some implied limitation based on the Militia clause.
A well-educated electorate being necessary to the continuance of a free country, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
The sentence above does NOT suggest that there is only one reason for the right, and it does not suggest that the government gets to decide which books are protected and which aren't, and it does not suggest that only voters are protected. The Supreme Court invented a "use" test but all they really needed was a definition of "arms" and "people".