29 votes

Dick Act Of 1902... Can't Be Repealed (Gun Control Forbidden)

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.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node%2F3949

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Seem like the enforcement is not working

Like a wolf with no teeth. It works both ways If one group pass laws that they do not follow or enforce what do they expect to occur. Presidential proclaimations in the term of Executive Orders. The joke is that the country is Arming itself Guns sold out, the hotest commodity. Hunting aint no fun when the rabit got a gun.

sovereign

Great post Glad I found it again

Deserves a bump.

BTW here is a better URL to the link.

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/3949

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Yep, Rod Class has been preaching this for awhile now:

You can go back through his archives; he mentions this Act several-several times, but here's one I do remember from the other night:

Go here and scroll down to the "Past Episodes", and you want Episode 608 that aired on 7/10/12.

He starts talking about it at approximately the 30:00 to 35:00 minute marker:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=4...

He explains what THEIR definition of "firearm" actually is, and it's not what you might think :)

I believe you can find the definitions here:

Title 27; CFR 479.11
Title 26; USC 5845

Anyone know if it was repealed for sure in 1956?

http://patrioticandproud.biz/blog/2011/07/19/the-dick-act-of...

Oddly enough it is not available online from government sources, only a “catalog page” found at The Library of Congress. http://lccn.loc.gov/96190993

Comment on above: "I’m still doing the research, but it seems the Dick Act and its 1908 amendment were repealed in 1956- still trying to find the exact legislation that repealed it, all I have is a citation that it was repealed."

Repealed 1956: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... "Dick Act, ch. 196, 32 Stat. 775 (1903) (repealed 1956); Denning, supra note 85, at
217"

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

Good thread, good post

When facts of legislative history cannot be found in America it is most Constitutional to consider it is because the infiltrators of the US government consider the legislation to be against their interests.

This thread and mine, here,

http://www.dailypaul.com/232768/worried-about-your-3rd-const...

Are the most valid relating to "keeping and bearing arms". Use of Article V to see that laws are upheld is the first step. Wake up gun owners.

The post I reply to is relevant research. Perhaps this new paper by a Colonel in the NG will settle the question.

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA500868

"As the nation began to recover from its internal wars of the 19th century,
Congress engaged in acts intended to increase authority for federal funding to the
militias. In 1887, Congress first authorized federal funding of the militias within states. The Secretary of War directed $400,000 apportioned to the states and territories for “providing arms, ordinance stores, quartermasters stores, and camp equipage for issue to the militia”15 and annually required the governors to account for the materials that remained property of the United States.16 After the Spanish American War, Congress recognized the need for reforms:

the Dick Act that provided for an organized militia—to be named the
National Guard—that would conform to the organization of the Army, be
equipped through federal funds, and be trained by Army
instructors...provisions that when on active duty, the reservists would be
guided by Army rules and regulations and would receive the same pay as
that given to Army soldiers, and a new requi rement for the performance of
24 drills per year and a five-day summer camp. The act also gave states'
governors certain powers over their Guard units, such as the power to
excuse their troops from any of the drills or summer camp.17

The Dick Act—also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 of June 28, 1902, sponsored by United States Senator Charles Dick—gave federal status to the militia directed at promoting the efficiency of the militia and served as the basis for the federally funded state controlled Title 32 “training status,” replacing the 1792 Militia Act.1819 Congress amended and strengthened the Dick Act when it passed the National Defense Act of 1908 on May 27, 1908, changing the law restricting the NG from a maximum of nine months of federal service, within or outside of the United States territory, to service as long as the president deemed necessary.20 Congress subsequently passed the National Defense Act (NDAA) of 1916 in response to several key events, including political reaction to a study submitted by Secretary of War Lindley M. Garrison in 1915 entitled "A Proper Military Policy for the United States." Unlike prior studies, the proposals for reform in Garrison’s study turned away from the uptonian idea of an expansible Regular Army to promote the more traditional American concept of a citizen army as the keystone of an adequate defense force. Garrison proposed more than doubling the Regular Army, increasing federal support for the National Guard, and creating a new 400,000-man volunteer force (called the Continental Army)—a trained reserve under federal control as opposed to the state- controlled Guard. Garrison's proposal drew minor support from the Senate, yet it could not overcome adamant opposition in the House of Representatives, which overwhelmingly favored a strong NG as the nation’s internal protector. Although President Wilson refused Garrison’s full idea, he accepted a small increase in the Regular Army and the concept of a Continental Army."

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

delete

delete

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

.

.

The framers knew the natural

course of those in power is to seek more power. That is why the constitution was written in such a simple way, that anyone who could read it could comprehend it.