Pretty much, or perhaps more precisely: is the mention of “troops” in A1S10C3 intended to mean any institution of professional armed personnel permanently in the service of the state? Were the states meant to expressly rely on armed citizens, summoned for the purpose into posses or militias, to maintain public order?
I still would like a more rigorous answer to how to reconcile A1S10C3 with the 2nd, with regard to “militias” vs. “troops”.
It wouldn’t matter what the Supreme Court said because if they agreed they would be the first casualties in a very quick civil war.
By “Federal Government”, do you mean the Senators and Representatives that depend on our votes to receive and retain their jobs?
I did say “snowball in Hell’s chance” in the OP. Though by the argument that police=troops, they would already be unconstitutional, and could only continue if Congress magnaminously gave their permission. But that amounts to the same thing re your question.
The State of NY “banned” the NYC “Municipal” PD in 1854 and replaced it with the Metropolitan PD. For a while NYC had two PD’s.
And they served different political parties. Man, great times. Covered in Gangs of New York, if briefly.