It would be interesting to read the actual text of the 1792 Act, and the context in which it was adopted, but even that act was adopted 3 years later than when the Bill of Rights were sent to the states for ratification. But without knowing more, that on its face seems substantial evidence indeed, if not necessarily dispositive. One issue, is what happens if the militia definition is changed by statute. Does that change who has a right to bear arms, or is the right conferred on those, never to be lost, who were deemed in the militia by a statute adopted 3 years after the 2nd amendment was sent to the states for ratification? I suppose that the best argument for latter if that if it were the former, the right could be gutted by a statute changing the definition of militia. And why was Congress defining militia, when it is a state run enterprise? What is that all about?
In any event, it is odd that one is deemed in the militia just be breathing and being of a certain age, without more. Very odd.
As a Happy Thanksgiving gift I give you this to contemplate:
The Militia Acts(plural) of 1792
Seems clear that the founders not only wanted but required every man of fighting age to be equipped with the basic issue of the infantryman. IOW's, I should be required to maintain my M16 and M60 in fighting trim. :-}
As an aside it kind of puts the kabosh on the argument that a draft is unconstitutional for any originalists, eh? :>}