What? A reporter gets it wrong on militias?

Whoda thunk it?

I'm going to quote a chunk of the post on the difference between a State Guard and a militia:
These are not — as you might think from reading the article — renegade “militias” organized by anyone who might want to. They are Congressionally authorized military forces, supposed to be there for use within a state if the National Guard is overwhelmed or unavailable because of foreign deployment, etc. Unfortunately, this discussion gets all mangled in the article and the distinction isn’t clear at all. So, here’s a nutshell summary:

We have the armed forces of the United States. Those include the National Guard, which — though occasionally called “the militia” — is really troops under federal control, as made clear in Perpich v. DoD, which held that National Guard units may be sent abroad over the objection of their governor. (Technically, National Guard members are enrolled in both their State’s National Guard, and the National Guard of the United States, but the latter trumps in the event of a dispute).

The State Defense Forces are troops raised by states with the consent of Congress. They’re not militias, either, but they have no dual Federal role, and can’t be “federalized” as the National Guard can.

We also have, again as recognized by both federal and state statutes, an “unorganized militia” of the states, and of the United States. This includes most male adults and — in some states — females, too.

Some folks in what remains of the “militia movement” favor the establishment or expansion of State Defense Forces in their home states. They may want to join them, too. Nonetheless, those Forces aren’t militias, any more than the membership of “militia movement” folks in police forces makes the police a militia.
He also notes that the Southern Poverty LyingLaw Center is at it again, stirring up crap about militias. Back during the weekend Insty pointed to an article I'd forgotten, from 1996, on the subject of SPLC hysteria-stirring on the subject.