The prosecutor brought the case to SCOTUS, not Mr. Miller. Neither Mr. Miller nor his legal counsel appeared in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Miller died before the decision was even reached.
"... on grounds of a violation of his second amdendment rights."
The lower court was vague -- they simply said the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment. They did not say why it violated the second amendment. They certainly did not say it violated Mr. Miller's individual right to keep and bear arms, as you claim.
"therefore SCOTUS determined Miller had standing to bring the case."
Again, the prosecutor brought the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court made no decision. They came to no conclusion. They never said the second amendment protected an individual right NOR did they say it protected a collective right.
They remanded the case back to the lower court with a question about the weapon's relationship to a well regulated Militia. Why would they be concerned about that relationship? What if the weapon had no relationship? What then?
You don't even know what Miller says, how can I have an intelligent discussion with you?
The Prosecutor did not appeal, Miller did, and he disappeared before the case could be argued. SCOTUS still issued an opinion even though Miller's side never filed a brief. The very fact that SCOTUS ruled on the appeal, rather than dismiss for lack of standing means that Miller had standing to appeal the lower Court's decision - otherwise SCOTUS CAN NOT ISSUE A RULING ON THE MATTER.
The only way Miller would have had standing on a second amendment argument is if SCOTUS recognized that the second amendment protected an individual right. The Government's brief (have you read it, I have) didn't even argue standing, therefore the Government at the time conceded that Miller had standing.
What do you do for a living? Are you on the VPC's payroll?
Are you some kind of socialist attorney? (I hope not, because you really are out of your league in this discussion and you should go back to whatever it is that you do where presumably you actually have some knowledge.)
I'm through with you on this subject - you clearly are either ignorant or a shill for the anti-civil liberties crowd or both. Regardless, you have demonstrated over the years on this forum a refusal to actually learn from people who know more on the subject than you do - including the Fifth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Federal District of the District of Columbia.
Good day.
Due to the absence of any introduced evidence showing the utility of Mr. Miller's gun to a militia, the Hughes court majority concluded that it had no utility and remanded the case back to the appeals court. It did not render a decision that can reasonably be said to reject or uphold either the individual right position or the collective right position. It merely dealt with the narrow issue of the utility of Mr. Miller's short barrel shotgun as a militia weapon or accoutrement.
The thing that has made Miller such a painful thorn in the side of gun rights advocates is not what it actually said, it's the misrepresentation of the scope of Miller and the intentional misinterpretation of the decision by liberal lower court judges that has for all practical purposes nullified the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms.