But this is dispositive:
"The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; 5 given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person."
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.