DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
Submitted by Anisha on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 12:27
Somebody sent me this in an email to let others know.
Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3949
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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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
Some things I noticed...
When you click this link:
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3949
...and then scroll down to the bottom of the article, it sources the following:
March 19, 2009 - FourWinds10. When you click FourWinds10, it takes you here:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/us_consti...
Ok, so now your at FourWinds10, which is a pretty hokey site imho, and it says this article is dated March 15, 2009, but then you scroll to the bottom of that article and it takes you to...
http://www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902
Now, here's where the trail ends, and the article here is not dated, but every other article around it is from 2002. Also, the Original title was "The Dick Act of 1902". Why the title change?
Just some observations I wanted to share. In any case, I think the way the assumptions set forth in the new title are reaching. I think the way this article was written was OK, and although there is some noteworthy information present, whats the point? Nothing in the article really backs up the claim made by the new title. "I know! Let's find some 7 year old article, change the name, make it all CAPS LOCKS, and get people fired up and supporting a 107 year old bad law."
The person who changed the title when they reposted this up on FourWinds10 makes the claim that the Dick Act makes all gun control illegal. The 2nd Amendment did that already! "Shall not be infringed", period. The article isn't about gun control, it's about the limitations of the President to send the militia to fight in wars outside of our country. It's saying that Drafts are unconstitutional, and that even sending the National Guard oversees is illegal.
In closing, this article is OK, but the new title for it sucks! Is there some effort to repeal the Dick Act underway in congress? No! Btw, the Dick Act did nothing but allow government to further restrict peoples unalienable rights by forcing them into categories not previously recognized by the founders. It's passage repealed/superced the Militia Acts, and it created new terms the founders did not recognize. If it was repealed, the Militia Acts would again be law. Besides, WTF is this "unorganized" garbage? The 2nd Amendment says "Well Regulated". Neither the National Guard, or the State Guard is the Militia of the Constitution. If the National Guard was the militia of the Constitution then that would require a Constitutional Amendment since the Guard was created "after" the 2nd Amendment. If you want to know who is the militia of the Constitution, then please put down the keyboard, go walk into your bathroom, and look into the mirror! Militia means "the whole body of the people".
Kel
P.S. D.C. v. Heller opened up a can of worms, when the judge said "reasonable restrictions", and the defense agreed. I still consider it a win, but I think it left a loophole that will be Obamanized later. There's some mention of the Dick act on the following thread about D.C. v. Heller if interested.
http://www.awrm.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32...
im not sure
but in some of my searching i found people say it was passed in the HOUSE in 1902 but amended and then passed in 1903 exept that the amendments gutted all the gun right's parts, im not a 100% sure so pleeze prove me wrong
we kind of need the text of the bill, I cannot find it.
but google isn't the end all for research, and thats all I have.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
Good thing that was passed in 1902. Otherwise there might be
gun laws and the National Guard might be serving overseas. Thank god for peices of paper; they make everything ok. Maybe they could fix this the day they throw out the usurper president that caused this entire mess.
Yep, you got that right.
Its all about 'enforcement'. Look at our Constitution. I am beginning to really 'hear' what Bush meant when he said, "....Its just a g*d damned piece of paper!" I thought at the time, 2005, when he was reported as saying this, that he was being a bad-ass for saying such a thing, but I think he was just being realistic as to how things are 'really' being run in New York/D.C.
The question is how do we 'enforce' these things.
I am currently half way through David McCulloughs' book, 'John Adams'. Ya know it really becomes clear just how difficult it was to develop a 'governing' body in order to enforce the protections of our sovereignty in the beginning and watch how it eventually got overrun with other agendas throughout the decades since 1787-89.
If you have half the people who are still stuck in the 'monarchical' ways and protocols and symbolism blending with the new ideas of 'sovereignty' for all, well that is what we kinda got at the beginning.
I would strongly recommend people read this book. Its all based on thousands of pieces of letters left to posterity of their thoughts, mostly, John Adams and his wife, Abigail. The others didn't leave too much but you still get a pretty good picture. He sure fleshed out his characters very well based on the research.
www.cc2009.us
Bob Schulz 165 minute Webinar
http://www.republicmagazine.com/webinar/bob-schulz-continent...
Do you have the text of that law?
Wikipedia doesn't have it.
-jcr
"The problem with trying to child-proof the world, is that it makes people neglect the far more important task of world-proofing the child." -- Hugh Daniel
This was sent to me and I thought I'd let DPer's in on it and
see what you come up with here.
It only came with that website and that poster. Could find out where he got that from I guess by posting and asking him.
www.cc2009.us
Bob Schulz 165 minute Webinar
http://www.republicmagazine.com/webinar/bob-schulz-continent...
Bump, because it is important:
A friend sent the same thing to me and I was giving some thought to posting it here. Thanks. There are allot of things out there many are not aware of and this is one of the reasons I like DP so much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government
Bring The Guard...
Home.
http://www.bringtheguardhome.org/
Meet me on facebook - at “John Dennis for Congress" and invite your friends too!
http://www.facebook.com/johndennis2010?ref=search&sid=100000...
Most interesting. Of course
Most interesting. Of course a usurper who is un-Constitutionally occupying the presidency won't be bothered by a few other little violations of the Constitution, such as the general trashing of the entire Bill of Rights and disregarding text of the Constitution itself.
It would be very interesting to see someone who is perhaps fed up with serving AmeriCorp in these endless foreign wars use this as a legal challege to orders. Of course when the legal challenge was made by the officer not wanting to return to war under the orders of a usurper, they fixed it by dropping the orders. How many more would have to challenge and have their orders changed before people started paying attention? Of course people exhibiting this level of courage and integrity would soon be smeared in the press as cowards. That is very hard for good men to take.
Pat
BOHICA!!
Pat
BOHICA!!