[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger

Skateboarding Dog


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_ ... _control/news.php?q=1237163642
Published: Apr 4, 2013
Author: .
Post Date: 2013-04-04 19:07:29 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 544
Comments: 19

Re- Posted Juy 24, 2012

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#3. To: wudidiz (#0) (Edited)

Nonsense.

The Dick Act, the Efficiency of the Militia Act of Jan. 21, 1903, 31 Stat.L. 775, 57th Congress, 2nd session, chapt 196 (Public Law 33), simply made the organized militia the National Guard, the unorganized militia the Reserve Militia, excluded a very considerable portion of the population (all women, any man below 18 or older than 45, any man with a disability, most federal officials, etc.) from any militia, and provided for the activation of the organized militia in the service of the federal govt. It further provided that the federal govt would provide the militia with approved firearms and ammunition.

Far from being un-repeal-able, several sections of the original Dick Act have already been repealed and most of the surviving sections have been amended since 1903. The story that somehow repeal or amendment of the Dick Act constitutes an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder simply shows that the person making that claim doesn't understand the basics of those concepts.

IF the Dick Act is regarded as the only valid firearms legislation, then the result is this: No woman can have a gun, no male younger than 18 or older than 45 can have a gun, no male with a physical disability can have a gun, no Member of Congress can have a gun, no one working for the Postal Service can have a gun, etc. etc. And those who are still permitted to have guns are limited to the firearm and ammunition provided by the federal govt.

Shoonra  posted on  2013-04-04   19:48:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Shoonra (#3)

IF the Dick Act is regarded as the only valid firearms legislation, then the result is this: No woman can have a gun, no male younger than 18 or older than 45 can have a gun, no male with a physical disability can have a gun, no Member of Congress can have a gun, no one working for the Postal Service can have a gun, etc. etc. And those who are still permitted to have guns are limited to the firearm and ammunition provided by the federal govt.

Nonsense.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-04-04   20:11:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: GreyLmist (#4) (Edited)

You obviously haven't bothered to read the Dick Act yourself.
It's 32 Statutes at Large 775-780.

The Dick Act, To Promote the Efficiency of the Militia, 1903

After you've done that, you can see if the courts agree with your interpretation:

Andrews v. US (ND Okl., Oct., 24, 2006) 2006 u.s.dist. LEXIS 78198

scholar.google.com/schola ...? case=2329129178041050445

and
US v. Hale (8th Cir., June 10, 1992) 978 F.2d 1016, 36 Fed.R.Evid.Serv. 1034, cert.denied 507 US 997

scholar.google.com/schola...? case=1943364217870843525

Shoonra  posted on  2013-04-05   9:13:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Shoonra (#5)

I scanned through your voluminous assignments. Am not at leisure presently to read through it all more intently. What you need to do, though, and at your earliest convenience, is to set aside your lefty, rubber-stamping court-mentality regarding what is or isn't valid firearms legislation and just meditate on the 4-word phrase of the 2nd Amendment, "shall not be infringed."

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-04-06   5:48:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: GreyLmist (#6)

What you need to do, though, and at your earliest convenience, is to set aside your lefty, rubber-stamping court-mentality regarding what is or isn't valid firearms legislation and just meditate on the 4-word phrase of the 2nd Amendment, "shall not be infringed."

What you need to do, though, and at your earliest convenience, is to ignore (BOZO) that asshole so that he/she/it might just go away.

noone222  posted on  2013-04-08   6:00:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: noone222 (#9)

I'd rather not bozo anyone or be so rude as to deliberately ignore someone who usually debates me in a somewhat civil manner unless the issue is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution -- the natural born citizenship requirement for the Presidency.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-04-08   6:55:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

#11. To: GreyLmist (#10)

I'd rather not bozo anyone or be so rude as to deliberately ignore someone who usually debates me in a somewhat civil manner unless the issue is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution -- the natural born citizenship requirement for the Presidency.

....It is shoonra....

IF you are that eager to be more effective you would have better chances speaking at a local HOA meeting or CIty council meeting. Rather than shoonra.

That is my opinoine.,

titorite  posted on  2013-04-08 07:00:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]