Replies

You're carrying on as though the case was about whether or not Mr. Miller was allowed to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun. It wasn't.

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether or not the NFA was constitutional. Specifically, whether or not the tax stamp was an infringement under the second amendment.

The case had nothing to do with either a collective or individual right. Are you sure you even read it?

Specifically, whether or not the tax stamp was an infringement under the second amendment.

Insofar as you could still pay the tax on new product, you would be correct. But since they closed the NFA registry, it now violates BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20 (1922).

If there was any consideration that it was a "collective" right, the case would have been terminated on "standing" ASAP. While the feds wanted NFA upheld, the best strategy (as has so successfully been used in keeping any RKBA case from SCOTUS) is to derail every challenge by any means possible. As Miller pitted NFA vs. RKBA, the easiest route to shield NFA law from attack would have been to observe that Mr. Miller - being merely an armed professional thug - himself had no connection to a collective gov't-organized militia.

The last thing the gov't wants when shielding laws on the books is for anyone to actually address the law directly. Far easier to disqualify the challenger than to defend bad law.

And yes, the case was about whether or not Mr. Miller was allowed to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun - at least without taxation. Every indication in the Miller ruling is that if the weapon in question had been shown to have some connection to common militia use (say, it had been a machinegun instead - easy enough to show), then the NFA law would have been deemed infringement under the second amendment and, as a result, Mr. Miller [would be] allowed to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun.