"Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute."(Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)
As Stephen Halbrook correctly pointed out, under the "collective right" version of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court would have dismissed Miller's lawsuit against the Feds due to obvious lack of standing.
They would have explained that Miller obviously had no 2A rights and should have never been allowed to assert a claim for 2A protection in the first place.
The confusion surrounding the Miller case is absolutely incredible.
Miller NEVER sued the federal government.
The original criminal case against Miller, for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934, was dismissed by the District Court on the grounds that Miller was protected by the Second Amendment. Little elaboration of the reasoning was provided. Evidently the District Court thought that the meaning of the Second Amendment was pretty clear.
It was the government who appealed the dismissal. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, completely omitting any appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The existing Supreme Court must have been very anxious to meddle in this decision to have taken the case in this manner. Miller had no representation before the Supreme Court.
Hugo Black's assertion that the Second Amendment's "prohibition is absolute" appears to be an admission that so-called "assault rifles" are absolutely protected.
The Heller decision now clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms is broader than its enabling of a Well-Regulated Militia and extends to arms useful for self defense in the home.