That was always the intention of the ruling, because they picked a case where the government would appeal and Miller (a convicted bank robber with no resources) wouldn't be able to make a case.
I do not know if that is true, but it certainly seems plausible. And you're OK with that? If true, then what this means is that government blatantly cheated in this case, picking a case where they knew that the opposing side would not get a fair chance to have its arguments heard. It's an indication that they knew the principles that they were trying to establish were illegitimate, and would not stand if given a fair hearing.
———
[Later edit]
On doing some reading, it appears that something very similar to this is very likely the case. A judge Heartsill Ragon immediately dismissed the indictment against Jack Miller and Frank Layton for transporting the short-barreled shotgun across state lines, stating that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. But on many other occasions, Ragon expressed strong support for much more extreme gun-control positions, and there seems to be, if not outright proof, string circumstantial indication that he intentionally set Miler and Layton up to be a test case for the Supreme Court, knowing that neither Miller nor Layton would show up nor hire an attorney to represent their side, giving the government the chance to present its case one-sided, with no opposition.
Two relevant Wikipedia article state this outright, but the supporting documents to which they link are someone less definite.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.
In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.
I note that shortly thereafter, in this article, it states this…
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
- The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
- The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
- The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
- The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Point 1 is a outright lie. Nobody believes that the NFA was meant merely to collect revenue. The very name of the act,
“National Firearm Act”, refutes that, making it clear that its intent and purpose has to do with firearms, and not with revenue collection.
Commerce involves buying, selling, trading, manufacturing things, not merely possessing or transporting them. Point #2 is also an outright lie, unless it could be established that Layton and Miller transported the shotgun that they bought in one state, with the intent of selling or trading it to someone else in another state.
Point #3 is a stretch. Surely, if anyone had been present to argue the opposing case, they would have argued against this claim, and probably succeeded in convincing the court that this point was wrong.
Point #4 is not quite an outright lie, but a very obvious bit of deception. It depends on point #3 to establish that the Second Amendment only protects arms that are appropriate for use in an organized militia. But then, instead of arguing whether this type of weapon meets that criterion, they argued that the very specific shotgun for which Miller and Layton were prosecuted had not, itself been used in any such application, completely avoiding the question of whether that type of arm in general might have a military application, or might in fact be in current military use (which it was).
So, not only was the government's side set up to be argued unopposed, but the lawyers arguing that side absolutely committed perjury at least twice, and made at least one more statement that, while not an outright lie, was blatantly deceptive enough in intent that it could very well have been treated as perjury as well. It's surprising that out of the nine members of the court, none of them caught this deception, or if they did, they ignored it in the subsequent ruling.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Heartsill Ragon - Wikipedia
In 1939, Ragon authored an opinion in United States v. Miller, 26 F. Supp. 1002, stating that a federal statute violated the Second Amendment. Ragon was in reality, in favor of the gun control law and was part of an elaborate plan to give the government a sure win when they appealed to the supreme court which they promptly did. Miller, who was a known bank robber, had just testified in court against his whole gang and would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. Ragon knew that Miller would not pay for an attorney to argue the case at the supreme court and so the government would have a sure win because the other side would not show up. The plan worked perfectly. His opinion was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Miller (1939).
So, really, the evidence seems to strongly indicate that yes, government cheated. On that basis alone, the U.S. vs. Miller ruling ought to be thrown out as illegitimate.
