But they had no such duty if they disagreed?
"To suggest that the militia membership of Miller and Layton was going to be an issue at some later time"
The court didn't even know if this was a Militia-type weapon! Why in the world would they concern themselves with Militia membership?
You can't claim that the idea that militia membership was required didn't occur to the Court, since the prosecutor included it in his summary. Somehow you can see that, if the weapon is not protected, then militia membership is irrelevant.
Why are you unable to see that, if only militia membership is protected, then the particular weapon is irrelevant? No further evidence was required by the Court if that was their opinion and they had a duty to include such guidance. If the Court "disagreed" but somehow made a majority decision which did not include miltitia membership, then militia membership IS NOT REQUIRED. Anything else would be a DIFFERENT decision and would not be a part of the Miller decision.
The Court was aware of both issues and had a duty to guide the trial court. Their decision was that Miller and Layton need not be in a militia to win an acquittal.
We've been over this material in great detail in the past. You persist in your error because you fail to realize that the Court was responsible for guiding the trial court with respect to ALL relevant issues. An acquittal of Miller and Layton COULD NOT be appealed by the prosecutor.