Arguing for state recognition as the only government autrhorized militia is a tautology that does not acknowledge non governmental militia by definition. NGO militia is a Constitutional right from which government authority is proscribed.
As with the other 9 amendments these are rights not granted by the government but from which the government is expressly prohibited. They are restrictions of authority, a line drawn in the sand across which the federal government is expressly forbidden.
Militia is private, expressly non governmental and is foundational to our Constitution.
>Arguing for state recognition as the only government autrhorized militia is a tautology that does not acknowledge non governmental militia by definition. NGO militia is a Constitutional right from which government authority is proscribed.
I’m not sure I buy that a non-government-recognized militia is a militia; in the general sense; though for the government to define the militia as anything other than “the body of the armed citizenry” is a redefinition* of the order of the Supreme Court saying that the prohibition of Ex Post Facto laws as being applicable to Criminal law.
*redefinition [of language] is, by its nature, illegality.
**I am not saying that because a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights does not make it a right. I, however, do think that we CAN [and should] use existing [recognized] definitions against our current government. {i.e. beat it back with its own words.}
>As with the other 9 amendments these are rights not granted by the government but from which the government is expressly prohibited.
I especially like how [the duties of] Juries get to be defined by the government.
>They are restrictions of authority, a line drawn in the sand across which the federal government is expressly forbidden.
>Militia is private, expressly non governmental and is foundational to our Constitution.
See the above.
Also the question exists whether a member of the [active] Army or Law Enforcement is a member of the militia; given your definition that they recieve their pay from the Government certainly *could* raise a “conflict of interest” concern. {Which I think is rather likely, in the future.}