I linked to the case, Presser v. Illinois. I don't know the history of the private militia that Presser formed, it might have been a German socialist thing. The laws in question had to do with public parading with arms (required a permit), and privately drilling/training as an army unit.
Herman Presser ... was indicted on September 24, 1879, in the criminal court of Cook county, Illinois, for a violation of the following sections of article 11 of the Military Code of that state, ... 'Sec. 5. It shall not be lawful for any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, which license may at any time be revoked ... Sec. 6. Whoever offends against the provisions of the preceding section, or belongs to, or parades with, any such unauthorized body of men with arms, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the sum of ten dollars, ($10,) or by imprisonment in the common jail for a term not exceeding six months, or both.'The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1897, in the county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, 'did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with, an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the state of Illinois, or the troops of the United States.'
The facts of the incident make this a parade permit case, and as far as I know, the 2nd amendment does not provide for a right to conduct a parade without permission. Presser argued that if the paraders were armed, that the 2nd amendment rendered the parade permit law unconstitutional.
As for the word "State" in the second amendment, I take it as a generic reference to a political/social entity where the people are self-governing, and have ultimate say-so over their government.
That’s the one. It was used to go after these militias.
Since the state’s righters were the ones the BoR was created to mollify I have no doubt that the word meant “state” which were the components of the Union. There was no application to the larger body since the states could and did violate all those rights mentioned under the BoR for decades after its writing. Besides the writers understood that militias were no match for professional armies so they were not depending upon them.