The original 1792 act was never fully or equally enforced everywhere, but just because a law is not enforced doesn't make it invalid. Also, the draft is basically an extention of the original act, compulsary service in times of war. The act of 1903 only placed the organized state militia under federal guidelines but had no effect on the unorganized militia.

And if you bothered to read the SC decision that you sited you would have noticed (or possibly ignored the fact) that it only mentions "state militia" one time and it was not even close to saying that the national guard replaced them. The decision is about a tort claim, not about the merits of the act, other than whether National guard members/employees worked for the fed or the state.

Dropping court decisions that you haven't bothered to read is a sure way to get beat in this game, and you are still at the starting gate.

Read it and weep:

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc...1&invol=41



The 1903 act itself mearly modernizes the organized state militias into the national guard and fully finances it with fed $ and has no effect on the unorganized militia. However, you are welcome to point out the exact text in it that nullifies the Militia Act of 1792. Good luck finding it. ;)

The current (posted above) US code clearly states that the unorganized militia is not the national guard.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscod...-000-.html


Nearly all states still have active unorganized militias that have no gubmnt support and are not controlled by the fed.

Here is the evidence of the truth that you will continue to ignore about current state unorganized militias:

www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm

I can site plenty more evidence, including the sources. Why is it that you avoid doing the same? Is it because you "case" is full of holes and you know you cannot win? Or just laziness.



You don't think that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but if it isn't, then why has the SC ruled the "the people" means the same thing throughout the constitution?

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
494 U.S. 259
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

According to the opinion written by Chief Justice Renquist:

"The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

"laws.findlaw.com/us/494/259.html"