By &quot;gun laws regarding militias&quot; I assume you mean the Second Amendment itself -- few statutes concerning or mentioning militias are used to justify general gun use, but the 2A is and there&#x27;s an important reason why:<p>The founders envisioned a nation of citizen-defenders equipped and trained to protect their homes, farms, and neighborhoods from incursion by enemies, foreign <i>or</i> domestic. The Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms is a <i>prerequisite</i> for a well-regulated militia, not the other way around. And it draws on prevailing notions from English law at the time (the UK, like the USA, didn&#x27;t start moving to abolish or restrict gun rights until the beginning of the 20th century or thereabouts). This is <i>more</i> than some old, unrelated law; it is <i>the</i> supreme law of the land. If you do not think that it is applicable in the modern era, the solution is to agitate for repeal of the 2A, not to pretend that it doesn&#x27;t exist or has been outmoded and complain when people act like it still is valid, active, enforceable law.<p>I&#x27;m not even speaking as someone who favors guns. But the Constitution <i>is</i> what it <i>is</i>, and if we don&#x27;t like it we <i>change</i> it. If the government can get away with ignoring the Second Amendment and deciding it&#x27;s no longer relevant, think of what they might do to the First Amendment. Or the Fourth. Or the Fifth. Or the Eighth. Or the Thirteenth.<p>Get the picture?