We do agree that the Miller Court nullified some application of NfA 34. We DO NOT agree that "jury nullification" is involved.
The District Court judge is obligated to guide the jury with regard to what the law is. The laws that apply are NFA 34 and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The jury will not be given the option of ignoring either one. They will have an obligation to apply both as dictated by the Supreme Court.
The jury's job will be to decide whether the evidence presented at trial establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller or Layton committed a crime, given the District Court judge's guidance as to what constitutes the crime charged. The jury would be fully justified in acquitting if the short-barreled shotgun is found to be useful to a militia and the jury would be unjustified in finding otherwise.
Yes they would, but that's NOT what the law says. I'll say it once more. If the law was "a tax stamp is required for weapons not useful to a Militia", then they jury can determine if Miller's shotgun requires a tax stamp (based on the evidence presented at the trial).
But the law doesn't say that. The law passed by Congress is very specific and very clear. The law says "shotguns less than 18". It's either/or. Over 18", no tax stamp. Less than 18", tax stamp required. How can it be plainer than that? Where's the confusion? Where's there room for interpretation?
If the jury disagrees with the law itself, they have no power to rewrite it. They can only nullify it for Miller and Layton.
Hell, another jury in another case could hear the same evidence and say the shotgun isn't useful to a Militia. (If it looked like the one posted in my post #104, how would you vote as a juror?) Then those defendants would be found guilty.