I think the distinction between "organized" and "unorganized" was legislated after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, perhaps long after.
From the Constitution respecting the power of Congress:
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;"
Even when in the service of the United States, the command structure of the militia was tied to the state from which it came. By implication, there would certainly be times when the militia was not in the service of the United States. At those times, the Congress would not be governing the militia.
Someone with more expertise should tell us whether National Guard officers are appointed by the state in which they are organized. I know of no amendment affecting this section of the Constitution. If National Guard officers are not appointed by their respective states, then the National Guard would not be the organized Militia described in the Constitution.
.
Well stated!
Reality is just not fun for our control freaks.
.
“I think the distinction between “organized” and “unorganized” was legislated after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, perhaps long after.” And so on for the rest of your post.
Doesn’t matter for the thread at hand, or at least most of it. “Organized” militia and “unorganized” militia exist in reality and this is recognized in law.
George Mason spoke: “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788)
If the militia consists of the “whole people”, certainly some of them are unorganized.
Organized militia kind of fell apart in many States sometime prior to the civil war. People were still part of the militia, but they were unorganized.