As I noted to you before, Dahlia, Miller doesn't say what you and others -- including members of our federal judiciary -- seem to think it said. In fact, while accussing Justice Scalia of reading Miller with his thumb over the militia vebiage[which he actually doesn't -- he discusses that language but concludes differently on its significance] you seem to pay no attention to Miller's individual rights dicta

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[all emphasis added]

How could those folks supply their own arms if they weren't allowed as individuals to keep their own arms. It's certainly more logocal to conclude that the Miller court limited itself only to the question of whether the ban on a particular weapon -- a sawed-off shotgun -- was constitutional. It takes a logical leap to read the Miller court as rejecting an "individual right" reading of the 2nd Amendment.

That lower courts have for the past 70 years likewise misapprehended Miller doesn't make the collectivist reading correct.

By the way, I again have that uncomfortable feeling that comes from agreeing with Justice Scalia...