One lower court decision, I think it was Toft, quotes from the syllabus of the Miller decision. The portion of the syllabus quoted does not, in fact, match what Miller actually says. The other lower-court cases in turn cite Toft.
Counting on a court to do anything right while people like Ginsburg are on it would be unwise, but a reading of what Miller actually says (joined with an understanding of what terms like "judicial notice" and "remanded" mean) makes clear that it doesn't really support the anti-gun position. If it did, why did the government offer Miller's co-defendent (Miller was deceased) Jack Layton a plea bargain for time served instead of prosecuting him?
I can't find this anywhere, so I really can't comment. If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.
"but a reading of what Miller actually says (joined with an understanding of what terms like "judicial notice" and "remanded" mean) makes clear that it doesn't really support the anti-gun position."
I agree. Once remanded, I believe the lower court would have found that a sawed-off shotgun was indeed "part of the ordinary military equipment" and allowed by the second amendment. As to whether Miller and Layton were "enrolled for military discipline" is questionable -- they may not have had standing to bring a second amendment case.
"If it did, why did the government offer Miller's co-defendent (Miller was deceased) Jack Layton a plea bargain for time served instead of prosecuting him?"
Frank Layton pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun (after the Supreme Court decision) and was placed on five year's probation by Judge Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940.