All in good time, all in good time.
But if they rule that it's an individual right, and based on the Miller rulings "Militia suitable arms are protected", it's going to be awfully difficult for a future court to rule that the same individual weapons issued to the military can be banned from keeping and bearing by members of the group, "The People".
In a way the Court should not have to rule on whether the right is an individual, because if it weren't, the Miller court would have ruled that his keeping of even a militia suitable weapon was not protected because he didn't formally belong to any state organized militia.
Since the wording of "the question" seems to indicate that the rights are those of individuals, the court might just rule on whether the DC code sections in the question violate those rights. Hopefully that would in some way define what the Courtthinks those rights are, and what it would mean for a law to infringe upon them.
That's a gross misrepresentation of the Miller case. The question to the U.S. Supreme Court was NOT, "Does Mr. Miller have the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun?"
The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was, "Does Section 11 of the 1934 National Firearms Act violate the second amendment?" At least that's how my copy of the case reads.