[ctdonath2]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

"would have been to observe that Mr. Miller ... had no connection to a collective gov't-organized militia."

Gosh. I'm trying to think. Was his name even mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case? I seem to recall that 99% of it dealt with the weapon itself.

Yet you insist the case was about Mr. Miller and whether or not he was a member of a militia?

"Every indication in the Miller ruling is that if the weapon in question had been shown ..."

Exactly what I've been saying all along. The case was about the weapon, the tax stamp, and the NFA -- NOT Mr. Miller. And if it wasn't about Mr. Miller, then how could it possibly be about an individual vs a collective right?