Ladies and Gentlemen of the Forum,
Have the various gun regulations ever been challenged on the grounds that hey interfere with the legal execution of the duties of a militiaman?
Forgive me for not having the references to hand as I am outwith the U.S. and separated from my library.
The Second Amendment clearly states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This indicates both the existence of the militia of the various states and the individual right to arm oneself.
The Militia Act of 1792 indicates that the militia is made up of citizens aged from 14 (I think) to 45, who are residents of the various states.
Several of the founding fathers in the federalist papers and other writings used for legal interpretive purposes indicate the need for a militiaman to keep a certain amount of supplies on hand (one pound of powder and four pounds of lead). Inferring that a duty is extant without the state needing to call up said militia.
The NFA unlawfully interferes with this duty to procure effective tools for militia use.
The GCA prevent whole bodies of militiamen from carrying out their duties as aforementioned. It also introduces a "sporting test" which has no real bearing on the duties of the militia as set forth in the preceding documents.
The BATFE is a federal hindrance to the duties of the militiaman by interfering with the acquisition of supplies that are the default duties of the militiaman in absence of immediate orders from the state.
Lautenberg also prevents whole bodies of militiamen from performing heir duties as outlined in the federal documents as mentioned earlier.
Therefore, it appears to me that these laws are Prima Facia invalid as they directly contradict previous Federal Law and Illegally regulate the militia of the Various States.