Gun Control & RKBA

If a think tank wishes to publish an article without any proof to support the premise then I may dismiss their premise with an equal amount of proof.

Your comment I should support my statement of a prior ruling (ironic since you indicated the same proof was not needed in the article) would be valid, had I claimed there was such a ruling. I did not make such a claim.

Let's skip ahead to Miller-

An interesting caveat as you are well aware only the Government presented arguments, Miller being deceased at that point. Clearly the Court left the decision open to further review.

this judgement is rendered on, and restricted to the weapon, i.e. shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length.
It does not say Mr. Miller, who no one argued was a militia member, was unable to own a different weapon. Note my emphasis:
we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right {of jack miller} to keep and bear such an instrument

The amicus brief would be relevant if the language of the brief was quoted, or even paraphrased, in the decision. It was not.
One could infer by not incorporating the language in the decision the Court was rejecting the argument, but applying the same standard I used previously, I will not say it was rejected but left an open question, neither a supported nor rejected.