The National Guard being a creature of Federal law.

But it's not me who came up with this--it's actually in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, clause 16 not only gives congress the power to arm the militia, but it also gives it the authority to organise it. And given that the Supremacy clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution) states that "the Laws of the United States which shall be made" according to the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land, that means that if the Congress says the National Guard is the milita: Tough shit, pal, it's THE MILITIA.

I'm not going into the usual bullshit about 10 USC 311 and the unorganised miltia, but that is the equivalent of saying having a draft card makes you a member of the US military.

So, unless you are seriously suggesting the dismantling/radical reorganisation of the United States Military, then you are out of luck.

Even then, you have got to be willing to be enrolled (enlisted) to claim the right.

As Joseph Story said in his Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Bottom line--if you have a problem with something being "a creature of Federal Law"--then you really have a problem with the US Constitution.

But, as I like to say, some people who claim to defend the Constitution need to study up on what exactly they claim to be defending.