Miller v. "Assault weapons bans"
I was wondering if some of the better legal minds could comment on this. Would the Miller decision be useful in legal arguments against a ban on "military style" firearms and accessories? It would seem to me that something like an AR-15 would be protected under the Miller decision (in conjunction with Heller), as they are particularly "suitable" for militia use. After all, the DoD standard issue rifle is the closest thing to the AR-15, NFA rules not withstanding.
There were definitely some issues with the Miller case, but would those pose more of a risk than using the few good parts of the decision in our favor?