Very nice. But, as is common with laws, the devil's in the details.

First, you say, "Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law."

Curiously, you left out one conspicuous qualifier: white.

Here's the relevant text of the law[1]:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the
respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of
eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is
herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled
in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company,
within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve
months after the passing of this Act.

Many conservatives would no doubt be pleased that only white men could be armed by this law, and perhaps that's one of the reasons they're trying to bring the nation back to 1792.

Also, note that according to the above-quoted text of the law, you're not automatically part of the militia, but have to be explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" and that only "within twelve months after the passing of this Act" -- meaning in 1793 at the latest.

That's because this is effectively a conscription act[2], enacted with the specific and limited purpose of defending the nation "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[1][2] It's quite debatable whether such a situation has existed at any time since World War 2, and certainly not now. Furthermore, it's clearly not intended that these so-called "militias" use guns to defend themselves against each other, much less against the US government (as some vocal American gun advocates would have it).

Also, according to the Militia Act of 1792:

this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of
two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress
thereafter, and no longer.

So, from the text of the law, it can be argued that you wouldn't be considered a part of the militia until you're explictly enrolled, and that this enrollment wouldn't even last past the year 1794.

Here's another important part of the Act:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months
thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a
sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four
cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each
cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a
good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited
to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder

So, the exlicit intent of the Act was that the "arms" militia members were entitled to were muskets and rifles of the kind made up to 1794. The act also mentions arming militia members with "a sword or hanger, and espontoon".

In summary, according to the text and intent of the law, to be in the militia you'd have to be a white man who has been explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" by 1793 at the latest, your enrollment wouldn't last past 1794, and the intended arms for militiamen would be muskets and rifles, swords, hangers, and espontoons of the kind made up to 1794.

[1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792