More on Miller
James Bardswell's incomparable pages have a transcription of the court file and government's brief in US v. Miller. It's interesting to note how the government's position, as well, appears to have suffered from the incredible speed the Court demanded at end of term.
The government's brief does not clearly set out the different theories it argued. Today, you'd split the three alternate theories into three headings. The government's brief simply lumps them into one argument, going from (1) right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation (argument from common law, and with historical flaws); (2) right to arms is a collective right, citing Blaksley decision and misciting others; (3) that is blended into a third position, the one the Court bought, that "arms" relates to arms suitable for military use and not those useful only in brawls and such.
As further evidence of haste -- the government mis-cites the key case for collective rights as State v. Blaksley rather than the correct City of Salina v. Blaksley, suggesting that the drafter of the brief was working from memory and never went back to cite-check even the most important cases cited for its arguments.