The Militia Act of 1792 described a militia that was organized, armed, trained and accoutered with officers appointed by the state.
I don't understand your question.
Said Militia Act clearly describes a militia armed by the members, not the state.
“The Militia Act of 1792 described a militia that was organized, armed, trained and accoutered with officers appointed by the state.
I don’t understand your question.”
The Militia act was almost the first act passed by the first Congress peopled by the founders we often speak of. They began the act by describing the folk in that FEDERAL Militia as all able bodied males of military age and further advised that these folk were to appear, when called, with their own weapons. They they described the arms expected as handguns, muskets/rifles and edged weapons. The new states in turn drafted enabling legislation on the state level that was IAW this federal law. Read the debates about the Congressional action and some of the state debates and it is very clear that the Militia was the body of the people and that those folk were to provide their own weapons.
The issue is intent. What does the amendment mean. It meant what those who drafted it believed and intended it to mean, not what some law school liberal 130 years later decided it meant, for that is where the idea of a ‘collective’ right appeared, in university law schools at the turn of the 20th century.
Are you aware that the idea of a collective right did not exist anywhere in federal law until the 1930’s? Are you aware that state laws using a collective right did not appear till 1840 and all such laws were based on state constitutions and not the federal one. In Presser v Ilinois, the court ruled very clearly that the states do not have the power to disarm its citizens as that would infringe on the federal militia role, protected under the Constitution.
The question is very simple. On what historic base do you base the notion that a collective right exists. Trace that history to the founders. It simply cannot be done. It is a modern construct and as such is crappy constitutional law.
Sigh...rp, if you don't have that straight by now, just stop arguing. Give it up.
The Constitution delegates these powers:
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
That's the FEDS providing for organizing, arming, and prescribing discipline, with the STATES appointing officers, training, and disciplining. You keep talking like the states own the militia entirely; no, there is ONE militia that the states manage parts of. That the Militia Act speaks of "state militias" is like speaking of "state football teams" - they are often spoken of as separate, but are understood to be part of the same umbrella organization.
Try to keep up.
The MA provided that the militiamen would provide their own arms, and their own horses in the case of cavalry.