Holy shyt... he's an LTC in a State Militia (not NG), that has no acknowledgement of validity in COTUS or 2A?
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.
His militia is not acknowledged as "well regulated" by COTUS or 2A. They need to be disarmed forthwith, according to his logic. Of course, he neglects the whole use of the term "people" rather than "militia" in the second half of the sentence.
And heck, if you want to throw the modernistic use of "regulated" in there to mean controlled/restrained rather than trained, then you've got a different conundrum! 2A would CLEARLY say: Keeping the militia in check being a damned good idea, people have the right to own and carry guns.
No matter how you read the 1903 militia act or the 2A, you still can't escape the fact that the second half of 2A says "people." And "people" means all of us in every other phrase it appears, in COTUS and BoR.