Originally Posted by danielpalos

My question is why does it work that way, if we have a Ninth Amendment, and no invasion, rebellion, insurrection, or formal declaration of war against a lawful sovereign State? It could be considered a Natural Right, and privilege and immunity under our form of federal statism.

I should be able to plead the Ninth if I don't keep and bear arms And there has been no invasion, insurrection or rebellion.

Otherwise, I should be able to join a state only militia that is not callable to federal arms, without an invasion, insurrection, or rebellion the domestic tranquility of the State should require it.

Hypothetically, if someone in a well regulated militia were to bear their arms in public, it would be easier if they were easily identifiable.

I do not think our laws should exclude anyone, and anyone in official poverty could request appropriate arms to bear. It may even be considered a Ninth Amendment privilege and immunity.