Critics of the Second Amendment, upon failing to narrow its scope in regard to arms, often try tightening its application with slim focus on the militia and regulation clause. This post will not cover the error of failing to put said terms in the proper historical context but the opposite: how a militia of citizens can better meet the "well-regulated" stipulation as originally intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights. When it comes to preparedness the focus is understandably on field uniforms and gear, which is fine enough on an individual basis, but those who form or join a unit ought to have a wider scope for reasons of presentation to the community and, depending on what political shifts occur, distinct identity to be recognized by the outside world. Uniformity for the field is secondary to effectiveness but if some militia groups already emulate the regular military by requiring conformation to a common written standard of training and equipment it is little stretch to take that "well-regulation" to a new level and implement a duty uniform for all occasions outside field training and combat.
The focus will be on army standards as examples to draw upon; navy (and naval infantry) follow a wholly different tradition plus for many good reasons citizen militias are best organized along army lines. It is understood that difference between fatigue and garrison dress is a fairly recent phenomenon (some countries and factions may still lack such a distinction): at the start of WWII all belligerent armies had the same standard uniform for field and dress, only with some added embellishment to the latter. First the British and Commonwealth introduced their Battledress order, then the Americans recognized the need for a practical field ensemble and developed the M1943, their first uniform of many crafted specifically for "outside the wire" while punctuating the trend of yesterday's field dress becoming today's service.
Despite the occasional social clash America and Britain have been international BFFs for over a century (too bad the same cannot be said of neighbor Canada who has turned so self-righteous they make some of the wokest parts of Europe look moderate), part of the result of which has been cross-inspiration of military developments including uniforms. This led to extensive parallels (though the American side has been more subject to change) hence my choice to use both countries to showcase classes of uniforms. The British Army keeps theirs in a distinguished numbered order, plus there is the fact that Britain keeps the world standard for how gentlemen ought to dress (my primary heritage is English, please forgive my sentimentality, but one can hardly argue with how well 007 looks the part), so the terminology used will be based on the British system.
Ceremonial Dress (British Nos. 1 & 3)
This is not a standard issue category in the regular military as it is only pertinent to those who have roles (or anticipate entering roles) involving martial formalities. Traditional army colors are blue for temperate year-round use and white for warm weather, but there are so many types of ceremonial duties the total range of such uniforms is staggering. This category will not be elaborated further as the militia role of community defense would find little if any use for martial ceremony. That having been said, as a Son of the American Revolution I have the privilege of a regulation Continental Army uniform for the occasional community event.
Mess Dress (British Nos. 10 & 11)
Similar to Ceremonial Dress including being blue for temperate and white for warm but a different build for a different function, namely formal events lacking martial structure such as balls and weddings. It is the military equivalent of occasion wear like a tuxedo for men or gown for women; just wearing one of those (with a distinctive pin or brooch if called for) is much more preferable for the militiaman than the expense of custom-designing something liable to make one appear like Michael Jackson. As an officer in the Civil Air Patrol who meets weight and grooming standards I could wear US Air Force Mess Dress, but the expense of components and rarity of occasion to wear means I opted for the corporate version (easily crafted by adding and subtracting a few elements on the regular Corporate Service Dress).
Service Dress (British Nos. 2, 4 & 6; US Army Class A)
Now we reach practical ground. In the classier post-Korea era initial clothing allowance for US enlistees was: 1) wool Army Green 44 jacket, trousers plus service cap for year-round standard; 2) WWII-style khaki (earlier) or lightweight blend Army Green 344 (later) single jacket, two pairs trousers plus garrison cap for warm weather alternate; 3) 3 Army Tan 446 blend fabric shirts (civilian-style cut so strictly for wear under jacket) to go with the 3 pairs of Class A trousers which in the 1980s were replaced by the combined issue of long-sleeve (temperate) and short-sleeve (warm weather authorized) Army Green 415 shirts used both for Class A and B uniforms. Introduction of the fully-green uniform later in the Cold War also saw ending of the older AG-44 in favor of the lighter AG-344 only; conditions were compensated for via additional outerwear and even that category, formerly consisting of an AG-44 lined overcoat (for cold) and AG-274 raincoat (for wet) were consolidated into the Black 385 All-Weather Coat. In the 21st century America discontinued the 1954-vintage Army Greens in a brief attempt to cut costs by doubling the ceremonial blue uniform as the everyday duty uniform, but soon enough that gap was refilled with a new variation of the WWII-era OD service uniform. Meanwhile, the British Army refined but never retired their decades-vaunted service khakis, keeping the original shade for temperate and lighter colors for warm weather.
With history covered let's get to application. Service Dress (the latter word really categorizes it) is simply the military's version of the business suit [which happens to be the daily uniform of choice for both the US President and British Prime Minister] and as the highest-tier everyday duty uniform its use is in regard to how formal the duty environment is. Chances are low militia will need any such formality on a regular basis but on occasions of public presentation it would behoove select personnel to appear in business-like attire of matching colors, patterns, and accoutrements like that of private shipping and air services (a key paramilitary example being Civil Air Patrol's Corporate Service Dress).
Barrack Dress (British Nos. 2, 13 & 14; US Army Class B)
Back to the era centered around Vietnam recruits could be issued either 3 blend fabric "durable press" Tan 445 uniforms so long as it was the warm weather alternative or, upon AG-415 shirts made standard, they could be worn in either year-round (long-sleeve with tie) or summer (short-sleeve, tie discretionary) configurations with the same AG-344 trousers as Class A. The British are similar, key differences include the temperate variant having the pullover sweater as standard (sweaters are optional outerwear in the US military) and a distinct warm weather variant that has the regular shirt with sleeves rolled rather than a separate short-sleeve shirt. In more recent years the US first tried finding a place for Class B variants of the blue Army Service Uniform and are still defining the same for the new Army Service Green Uniform (a.k.a. Pinks & Greens) which closely resembles the officer variant of the WWII uniform.
If there is to be a garrison/duty uniform for militia this would be the category to fill and it need not be at all complicated: a common shirt and trouser (or skirt option for women) cut with like accoutrements, the same sort found numerous places in both public service and the private sector. One thing to keep in mind can be "appearance compatibility" with a basic level of field gear as utilized by security personnel: there are some colors that go better with olive green, black or brown equipment than others and it is no surprise that the traditional military shades of khaki are best at it. This must be tempered with caution as the intent is not to breach limits of appearing to steal valor or get charged with impersonation of any public officials; international law also stipulates that distinct entities to be recognized must have distinct uniforms so exercise common sense.
Combat Dress (British Nos. 5, 8 & 9, US Army Class C)
Since the Korean era when the US Army categorized all regular (meaning non-ceremonial) uniforms as either Duty or Working, Utility Uniforms (4 sets minimum issued and expected to be maintained always) enjoyed chief domain of the latter even if, come Vietnam, they were no longer field-specific. Anything in OG-107 could work well in cover of foliage, nevertheless it was the British who first understood and took action towards a general issue camouflage in the 1960s with their Disruptive Pattern Material cuts. Color and shade varied over the years even more than US ERDL and M81 Woodland but each were refined in light of lessons learned from the respective nations' war experiences. British No. 8 was the slot for this standard Temperate Combat Dress (equivalent to US OG-507 or Temperate BDU) and today is occupied by the same type in the succeeding Multi-Terrain Pattern; No. 9 was Tropical Combat Dress which was a similar lightweight variant like the US OG-107 and ERDL Tropical Uniform (used years past their prime as the Hot Weather BDU wasn't ready until the mid-80s); No. 5, the original Battledress category, recycled for the Desert DPM variant until being discontinued in favor of Britain's new universal camouflage.
Entire volumes' worth of study has been made on the best camouflage patterns (I wrote down some of my own thoughts last post), and while camouflage is enough of an ideal to now be general standard for militaries the world over that leaves no cause to discount solid-colored working uniforms even if just for training and garrison duty. Since camouflage uniforms tend to be more expensive their fielding can be considered like as through most of the Cold War: special use for the field (terrain-specific is best) rather than general purpose within homeland installations. There are many considerations to account for and the needs of the militia do not necessarily correspond to the needs of the military, but the point to be made today is there remains nothing wrong with good old olive drab or khaki battledress...just ask the Israelis how well it kept working for them over so many decades (since no one can say they don't know a thing or two about warfighting).
Protective Dress (British No. 12; US Army MOPP)
I figured not to leave this number out. Clearly NBC protective equipment is doled out for warzone use only, and only in case there is confidence of WMD use, so it has little if any militia use. There is logic in having a field mask on standby when it is viable local law enforcement (or renegade parties who acquire law enforcement weapons) may deploy tear gas, but if a foreign power were to resort to the insanity of hitting the Continental US with a WMD attack even the most well-equipped individual would only delay the inevitable since specialized decontamination equipment (and a team trained to use it) are necessary to surviving such.
Nevertheless there are a few extra-standard considerations for militia application. Ballistic protection is a standard expectation, but the interesting thing about most soft bullet-resistant vests (not everyone can deploy with a plate armor ensemble) is that they are not so resistant to spike (i.e. knife) or blunt impact. For that perspective police surplus riot gear can be an asset, or if not available a fair facsimile may be assembled from common body padding made for sports.
Closing Remarks
Logistics are a complex enough matter for the military, so expectation of private individuals meeting any arbitrary equipment standards needs to be kept within reason. Within that consideration the minimum goal should be for the unit to exude consistency to a professional level in both overall appearance and conduct. Particularly in a country like the United States whose own Constitution allows for (and expects, as some have argued) citizen militias yet sociopolitical changes over the past century have all but ended their condoned existence in favor of National Guard units that actually do not fulfill the same role (since their personnel can be arbitrarily placed under federal command and deployed overseas), the burden of proving oneself more than a ragtag wanna-be is high indeed...so strive to work hard to achieve the best standards of our peers whose acceptance into the ranks of the military or police afford them privilege of being trained and equipped at taxpayer expense rather than solely their own.