And that begs the question “Who is the militia?”
In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of “militia” as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court’s opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term “militia”, as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: “... the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range” (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them”
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (see page 26)
Many would argue also that Obama is the Messiah, but that doesn't make it true.
They're going to have to overturn the holding in the recent Supreme Court case, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER then.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
That's in the syllabus, rather than the decision itself, but it's also a succinct summary, which was approved by the author of the decision. In any event, Justice Scalia, the author of the opinion, included this phrase:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons
But should a new, and liberal, court decide that "right of the people" means "power of the state militias".. well that's the reason for the right in the first place.
Under the 18th century understanding of the term, every law abiding citizen of the United States is a member of the “Militia”.
So even by that standard, he was in compliance.