1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Dick Act of 1902

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by ironhead, Apr 16, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ironhead

    ironhead Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Butler Ky
    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 CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable

    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    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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."

    This is the full context of the bill.Every gun owner needs to read.
    Mike Ryan (iron head)
     
  2. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Our present congress and president do not recognize the constitution as any limiter on their power. Given that the vast majority of the citizenry don't care, congress and the president win by default.
     
  3. Straight50

    Straight50 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    496
    Location:
    Ky
    If this law is still on the books and has never been repealed, what the heck happened? It sure hasn,t slowed any previous and certainly not the current administration down!
     
  4. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    12,532
    Location:
    God's Country
    Maybe some of the 'Richard Craniums'(dickheads) in Congress need to study this.
     
  5. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    So would that mean that when a male turns 46 he has to turn in his weapons, maybe it is a good thing that it this law is not enforced? What constitutes able bodied? That is an unnecessary word that clouds the issue IMO.
     
  6. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    Noknock - simply No.

    The 2nd Amendment is a natural Right belonging to ALL the people. The 18 to 45 'able bodied' citizen referes to the bandwidth of males with two hands and two feet intact that are available for military service in a national emergency.

    The Founders, if confronted with the events of the last year would probably try each of the Perps, hang em the next morning and then impeach the president for High Crimes and Misdemeanors for his cover ups on Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

    They would rightly conclude that it didn't matter if Gameboy was 'not quite right', and that his continued existance on this plane was offensive to the general populace and specific families affected.

    They would next look at the Congress members that were so focused on disarming the People and dig into that question immediately.
     
  7. chuckie68

    chuckie68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Location:
    Royal Oak, Michigan
  8. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    drgondog,

    <i> Noknock - simply No.

    The 2nd Amendment is a natural Right belonging to ALL the people. The 18 to 45 'able bodied' citizen referes to the bandwidth of males with two hands and two feet intact that are available for military service in a national emergency.

    The Founders, if confronted with the events of the last year would probably try each of the Perps, hang em the next morning and then impeach the president for High Crimes and Misdemeanors for his cover ups on Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

    They would rightly conclude that it didn't matter if Gameboy was 'not quite right', and that his continued existance on this plane was offensive to the general populace and specific families affected.

    They would next look at the Congress members that were so focused on disarming the People and dig into that question immediately. </i>

    Unfortunately the founders are no longer around... So to address your first comment about the second amendment, I think that the language of that "law" hurts more than it helps. I understand the 2nd amendment and believe that is the only law of the land. This law clouds the waters, plain and simple. This law specifies what a militia is and the age group. Women were not equal to men when the founding fathers authored the 2nd amendment.

    <i> 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

    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. </i>

    I am not an attorney, so with my limited knowledge of the law that is why I don't like the aforementioned language. To me, it seems clear, this 'law' states that the 2nd amendment applies to a certain age group and specifically males; outside of said brackets, there is no right to bear arms.

    One can interpret the wording differently, it would come down to some federal court decisions and ultimately a SCOTUS ruling, i.e., Heller affirmed all of our rights more so than the Dick Act.
     
  9. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    The creeps in Congress can change anything they want to. What's more, the Supreme Court and the President can also.

    For example, the bondholders in GM and Chysler were screwed in spite of the "law". Justice John Roberts actually refused to vote on Obamacare. saying that it was up to the legislature. If this were the case, then all Supreme Court rulings since Marbury vs Madison adjudicating the constitutionality of a law would have to be vacated since Marbury vs Madison was the origin of the Court's claim to have such power. Nowhere else, certainly not in the Constitution is the Court granted such power.

    In the case of the President, he can merely issue "Executive Orders" or have a federal agency (EPA) issue regulations. A cowardly Congress is his ally in such cases.
     
  10. Voolfie

    Voolfie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Wilmington, DE
    It is the current policy of the Executive Branch to IGNORE lawfully enacted immigration statutes. They pay no penalty for doing so.

    I sincerely doubt that they will pay any penalty for violating the Dick Act.

    The vast majority of those who populate the government view the Constitution as - at best - irrelevant...and at worst, an impediment to their establishment of a Socialist Utopia here in North America.

    We're getting perilously close to the point where We The People may have to hit the "Reset" button on the whole thing.

    -V
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.