"
Considering the NFA didn't come around until 1934, an 1870's case on the issue would be a little out of place."
I did not offer
English v Texas as a case negating the NFA. I wrote that it "
supports the contention you make" which was that the NFA is unconstitutional because it restricts "
private ownership of the very type of arms necessary to formulate a militia unit."
In
English v Texas the Texas Supreme Court held that weapons such as "
dirks, daggers, slungshots, sword-canes, brass-knuckles and bowie knives, belong to no military vocabulary" and affirmed the right of the State of Texas to control their use, because they did not constitute weapons a militiaman would use, which by inference, means that weapons falling within the "military vocabulary" would be protected. Here is a quote giving substance to this claim by the court, which specifically named the weapons of an infantryman or militia soldier that were covered:
"
. . . The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms. . . ."
So by inference, it can be logically argued that the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 overturns a legally-established right, given substance in the
English v Texas decision, for a person to possess the weapons of a militiaman as you had stated.