Then it might not be protected, and that flies in the face of the so-called "sporting purposes" test popular among gun banners now. But short barreled shotguns have been in common usage for a long time, such as "coach guns" and "trench guns". In fact it is hard to conceive of a type of firarm that would not be suited to the militia.
Might not? How about would not?
Meaning this case wasn't about an individual RKBA. If it was, the weapon would be immaterial.
It was important to the Supreme Court to know if the weapon was suitable to a militia. Why? Because if it was suitable, then the tax would be an infringement on the ability of a state to form a militia armed with those particular weapons.
If it wasn't suitable for a militia, then the state could form their militia without interference.
One last ditty. Who decides if the weapon is suitable? The Miller case was remanded because the suitability was in question. Think about it. Who is in the only position to make that determination?