We should not forget that the battle of Lexington/Concord [which started the Revolutionary war] was over weapon-confiscation;the analogy to today would be if the federal army rolled into a state and demanded access, accountancy & regulation of the materiel of the State Police [I would say National Guard, but then people might be able to argue that equipment belongs to the Army itself and I want to constrain the debate to the relevant aspects]. Now, because the equipment of the State Police was bought and paid for by the State it could refuse such access to the Army.
That would be the modern-day equivalent of the conditions wherein the actual war of the Revolution was sparked. Though there are some differences, such as the Second Amendment [supposedly] guaranteeing the ability of the State to have a militia [because it guarantees the people themselves the Right of Arms].
{Note: Guarantee /= Grant; the Bill of Rights does not generate/grant any right, it acknowledges preexisting ones.}
The 1st amendment has nothing whatever to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is a creation of the federal government, and so subject to federal control. The militia of Lexington/Concord owed as much to the government back then as does today’s Tea Party - none.