Wasn’t the ruling from Miller that only guns suitable to military service were protected by the 2A? This would be in direct violation of Miller.
Yes, that is what Miller says. This is what most courts in the USA said up until Miller. A few courts thought all weapons were protected. Most said only military weapons were protected.
Nobody even suggested that military weapons weren't covered.
However, it looks like the current court
probably considers semi-automatic rifles protected under the Second, and not actual military machine guns, due to the absurd "dangerous and unusual" fantasy they have concocted. English common law said there was no right to
carry dangerous and usual weapons
"to the terror of the public"- ie, brandish them... the courts recently twisted this to imply that there is no right to
own "dangerous or unusual weapons"... even if the only reason they are unusual is that they are heavily regulated/banned already.
It is an absurd circular argument, but they aren't going to let us own machine guns.