Yes, and we agree the U.S. Supreme Court told him he was wrong to dismiss the case. The District Court judge thought that all weapons for all citizens were protected by the second amendment and they're not. It turns out that the Supreme Court is looking for weapons that have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
Now, if you're the District Court judge, your decision reversed and remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court, what are you thinking? Are you really thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that the second amendment protects Militia-type weapons for individual citizens but NOT non-Militia type weapons for citizens? Does that make sense to you? Isn't that just the opposite of what you would think?
You're saying the U.S. Supreme Court is ruling that a citizen can own and use a machine gun, but not a handgun? (I have a lower court ruling somewhere that concluded a handgun is not a Militia-type weapon.) Do you see what I'm saying?
"Why don't you descibe what actions you think the lower court was obligated to take, given the meaning you ascribe to the Miller decision?"
Well, if I was that District Court judge, I'd now be thinking along Militia lines, given that slap-in-the-face reversal of my dismissal. I would hold a separate hearing and call experts to determine if Mr. Miller's weapon bore some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, as instructed by the U.S. Supreme Court. If it did not, then I would proceed with Mr. Miller's trial. Mr. Miller can always plead with his jury in his trial and hope they think it's a Militia-type weapon and acquit on that basis.
If Mr. Miller's weapon did bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, then it's decision time. The second amendment protects a Militia-type weapon from infringement, but does the second amendment protect an individual citizen's right to keep and bear it or not? If I, as the District Court judge, believe it protects an individual citizen's right to keep and bear Militia-type weapons, I dismiss the case (again).
If I do not believe it protects an individual citizen's right to keep and bear Militia-type weapons, then I declare that Mr. Miller lacks standing to use the second amendment in his defense and proceed with the case. Again, Mr. Miller can plead with his jury in his trial and hope for an acquittal.
I can't do justice to your posting because I can't sort out WHEN some of the things that you are proposing take place relative to others.
For example, the judge can't dismiss a case AFTER it is submitted to a jury.
We also don't know for a fact that the District Court judge dismissed originally because he thought that the Second Amendment protected ALL citizens in keeping ALL arms. As mentioned earlier, there may have been a law on the books denying arms to people under 14. But its not relevant. What we do know to a certainty is that the District Court judge believed that the Second Amendment protected the right of Miller and Layton to possess a short-barreled shotgun.
Since the Supreme Court did not provide guidance that Miller and Layton needed to be militia members, the judge is not going to change his mind about the Second Amendment apply to Miller and Layton. The Supreme Court did point out that they lacked evidence that a short-barreled shotgun was useful to a militia, and on that basis they reversed and remanded.
The District Court judge is obligated to tell the jury what the law is. Miller's defense is not going to be able to argue protection for Miller's possession of a short-barreled shotgun unless the judge instructs the jury that the protection might apply.
Imagine for a moment that the Supreme Court had decided just the opposite with respect to the two prosecution arguments. That is, that the Second Amendment protects militia members for all arms, but offers no protection whatever for non-militia-members. The District Court judge would then be obligated to allow evidence regarding whether Miller or Layton were militia members, and the judge could disallow any evidence concerning the usefulness of the particular weapon as being irrelevant. In this case, the jury would be charged with deciding whether the prosecution had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller or Layton were not members of a militia.
In either case, the judge would disallow any "pleading" with the jury to ignore the judges instructions as to what the law requires.