Therefore, the SC remanded the case back to the lower court, thus enabling leftists everywhere to claim Miller as "their case", even though a careful reading clearly demonstrates that this is a pro-RKBA case.
Agreed that this is a generally a good, pro-gun 2nd Amendment piece, especially coming from a liberal. However, I'd like to differ with you slightly, or rather to finish your argument. What the USSC said was that it was not "within judicial notice" that a short-barreled shotgun was (and here I paraphrase) a piece of equipment that would contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The operative phrase is "not within judicial notice." Miller won at the circuit level, and was released from prison. Being a scumbag, he promptly disappeared. Not being paid, his lawyer didn't show up for oral argument at the USSC when the government appealed. Then the government attorney failed to point out (contrary to his duty as a lawyer) his opponent's obvious argument that such guns were, in fact used with great efficiency in WW1, only 21 years earlier (they were called "trench brooms," since they very efficiently and effectively cleared trenches of live enemies). It is ONLY the fact that the USSC had no "judicial notice" of this that allowed the government to win this case; otherwise, the 1934 NFA would be a short-lived and forgotten law.
I do dispute your contention that the only thing protected by the 2nd Amendment is "standard military issue" weapons. First of all, the 2nd Amendment protects "arms," which is a very wide general catagory, rather than "standard military arms," which is far less broad. Second, even by the standard set by Miller, ANY weapon used with effect on the battlefield would be protected. Look at what was used in WW2, which the US joined only 2 years after the Miller case: not just Garands, full-auto Thompsons and M-1 carbines, but also M-3 "greasegun" submachine guns, .30 and .50 caliber machine guns, single shot "Liberty" guns dropped by the millions to resistance movements across Europe, pen guns, hand grenades, silenced guns of all kinds, etc. Oh, and short-barreled shotguns. In other words, ANY weapon used on the battlefield that can be carried by a single person is protected by the Miller standard, and the NFA should be struck down in its entirety, as should the 1968 Gun Control Act. Now, in 2002, you and I should be able to walk into our local hardware store and buy a full-auto M-16, a SAW, or any of the standard infantry weapons of ANY army in the world - but also ANY weapon that would be of any effect on any battlefield (so that if a futurist weapon were developed, but not adopted by any army, we should still be able to buy it). I am not holding my breath waiting for this to declared legal, but it should be. Someday, perhaps, a 2nd Amendment case will come before the USSC, and we'll see the wrongs of the past corrected. One can only hope, and perhaps a bit more, now that Bush's nominees (whom I would generally expect to be strict constructionists) can actually get a fair hearing. We'll see.
Re-arranging phrases for clarity.... The Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear weapons for the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.