"That would be a startling reading of the opinion..." Is saying it is radical to him, essentialy not his opinion. "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after" Is saying that what his actual opinion is now, and redefining Miller (and the beliefs at the time, keep in mind Miller actualy won in the lower court and NFA was declared unconstitutional.) "We therefore read Miller to say" Once again saying the old understanding of Miller and society at the time is being replaced with this current new understanding of what they feel Miller REALLY meant. Miller was 'dangerously' pro machinegun, and the court corrected that today. It is correct the Miller decision was very bad, because it affirmed that some restrictions, namely the NFA as it pertains to shotguns was legal, opening the way for a tidal wave of future restrictions. It was however pro possession of military arms. He is saying that Miller had some pro machinegun aspects that were not a direct issue in the case since it was about a shotgun. That to base a decision on the Miller case in a pro machinegun way because it alluded that the decision would have been different had it been a machinegun and not a shotgun was a bad course of action for the court to take now. Like I said, he affirmed the negative aspects of Miller and removed the positive pro machinegun and military weapons aspect of Miller so only this decision would have a bearing on that and not Miller. His reasoning is it was not a central part of the case or directly ruled on, so ignoring that positive pro machinegun aspect is correct. He however then allows future speculation on the assault rifle issue in: weapons used by militiamen "...and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same..." Why would the court strike down positive old references to machinegun ownership, while inviting new thought on the issue? Be very cautious. To me that sounds like preparation for an anti machinegun ruling if one makes it to them. I certainly hope not though. Notice there is also little reference in that to weapons suitable for defense against tyranny, which was the primary purpose the founding fathers had in mind. Weapons suitable to that task could be very different than those only used for defense of "person and home".