The "militia" is sufficiently defined under federal law that the collectivist-only argument is unsustainable. They anti-gun crowd continues to cling to it, though, because it's all they've got.
If they cross that rude bridge once again, the embattled farmers will be there to meet them.
Indeed we will.
US Code 10, chap 13, defines Militia as follows:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Therefore, under this law, there are no gun ownership rights for women unless they are members of the National Guard or Naval Militia, nor are there any gun ownership rights for any male over 45 years of age! My niece is still a Turkish citizen. Her rights?
I’m 63. Who do I turn my weapons in to? Who does my wife give her cute little .38 snub-nose hammerless to?
Also, an “unorganized militia” is certainly not “well-regulated.” That leads to the “the only well-regualted militia is the NG....” argument. Remember, in Law, EVERY WORD means something.
Trust me, we do not want to go into the legal definition of the word “militia” in the US!!!!!