DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.

 

second amendment2

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. ~ See Related Article

 

**Share this info with others**

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

Source

 

Also see...

Related article added October 1, 2015

Taking Another Look at The Dick Act of 1902...


 

November 3, 2009 - KnowTheLies.com

 

Is this Bill buried 'somewhere' in the Library of Congress? Without seeing the origional Bill and actions taken we can't verify the true intent or result. Even if the 'origional' Bill is found, is there a way to prove it hasn't been altered?...

By removing or adding just one word, 'someone' could change the entire interpertation of this Bill from its origional language... Definately something to think about. ~ KTL

 

Tag this page!
Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.

Comments

walter Kelliher (not verified) | Mon, 02/22/2010 - 6:26am

Are they not first answerable to the constitution then the President? That would mean if the President tells them to do something unconstitutional such as violating the Dick act of 1902, by disarming the people, they are not constitutionally required to follow an unconstitutional order there by illegal even from the president?

action games (not verified) | Tue, 02/16/2010 - 7:02am

I was searching for some details about DICK ACT of 1902, because I think this is one of the unique topic and very rare information we can get about it.
Thanks for sharing.

Arizona guns (not verified) | Wed, 12/23/2009 - 1:39am

Owning a gun with complete papers and documents is recommended, just make sure you keep it safe and away from minors. Storing your guns in a gun safe is an easy way to prevent a tragic accident in your home. Safes also keep your guns away from thieves, and the cost of buying a safe is cheaper than the lawyer bills if your guns end up in the wrong hands.

Gun safes made of steel are the best, but there are different types of steel available. More steel and higher quality steel equals stronger protection. However, attaching a thick-steeled safe to the floor is more difficult because it is hard to drill holes through the thick steel.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 07/21/2012 - 8:03pm

Owning a gun with paper work is one of the dumbest things you can do. Keeping it in a safe is also stupid, educate your family about fire arms is the smartest senerio, showing them how to shoot and practice gun saftey is also smart. You cant fend off a attacker if your gun is in your safe, forget it and buy ammo with the money.

JOSEPH LYNN LARSON (not verified) | Sat, 02/20/2010 - 7:18pm

It does not make sense to lock your gun in a safe to insure it does not get stolen. If you are going on a vacation, maybe, but if you are at home and someone enters your home to do you harm, well the harm will be done before you get that safe open. This is why the law on the books in WY. IS SOOO IMPORTANT. Like Alaska and Virgina it gives the citizen the right to carry concealed without applying to the Feds for a permit. If you are qualified to have a gun at all you are allowed concealed carry, "if this law passes". ALSO, THERE IS A STIFF PENALTY FOR ANY STATE, COUNTY OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO TRY TO APPLY FEDERAL STATUTES TO CITIZENS WHO CARRY CONCEALED... NO AGENT OF THE FED OR STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT AND IF THEY ATTEMPT THIS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE FORCE TO KEEP THEM OUT. Remember to match force for force, if they knock and ask, tell them no, DO NOT PULL OUT A GUN AND SHOOT THEM.

sciopatriot1776 (not verified) | Sun, 07/26/2009 - 12:43pm

"The Constitution is nothing more than a
G*Damned piece of paper" GW Bush

With this kind of thinking it should be obvious
We the people by the people for the people
mentality is GONE!!
If the Constitution is a just a piece
of paper so is the Dick Act so is all of the other
law written on paper.
So lets just go back to sleep.
Or Sheep ARISE ARISE !
And lets keep this the home of the BRAVE

Oh hey Sad in America, Love the Site.

Anonymous (not verified) | Fri, 02/12/2010 - 6:25pm

"The Constitution is nothing more than a G.D DAMN piece of paper!" If GWBush feels this way about this Country, It's Constitution, Bill of Rights, and LEGALLY passed laws based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he didn't have any right being a Citizen, natural born or otherwise, let alone President of the United States!

joe (not verified) | Tue, 01/12/2010 - 1:28am

tell that to the men who died for your freedom.

Bill (not verified) | Thu, 07/30/2009 - 10:02am

Sounds more like something Pelosi or Reid would say.

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 2:38pm

But, Pelosi or Reid DIDN'T say it. Bush actually said it. And, he's nothing more than a g*damned piece of shit.

Drew (not verified) | Wed, 07/14/2010 - 11:34pm

And at this point, I would give almost ANYTHING TO HAVE bUSH BACK AS OUR PRESIDENT instead of what we have. The usuper in chief is leading our once great country down a path that we the people do not want.

P.R. Jr. (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 1:55pm

sounds "more like"? Get real. It sounds like something that 99%+ of the criminals in DC would say. Pelosi & Reid are just on top of their particular steaming pile.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 07/25/2009 - 10:26pm

The term "unorganized militia" is an oxymoron. While the DA reaffirms already unrepealable Constitutional facts, it muddies the waters with this "unorganized militia" tripe. What it actually does is functionally identify the "organized" citizenry-militia of each state as a government function, when in fact that is not what it was ever intended to be.

Anytime anyone tries to make an issue more complex than it needs to be, do know that they intend no good.

DanD

olde reb (not verified) | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 7:34pm

We also know that a standing army in time of undeclared war was not in place until 1946.

But let us assume that at least part of the article has a grain of truth. What then ?? Do we find any state legislators or governors who will raise a voice of protest, even an action in a court ???

The Federal government will threaten to cut "gifts" to the state and the states will waffle.

voluntaryist (not verified) | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 12:24pm

All rights are absolute and personal. Adding these adjectives is redundant. We don't have rights AND amendment rights, we just have rights, however, some are mentioned in amendments. "The U.S. Constitution and the bill of rights"? Redundant. The BOR was an after thought but it was added before the document was ratified. "...cannot be repealed...would be a yet another gross violation"? Are you saying that since we have had violations we can't have more? But that is not the main problem. The Constitution contradicts itself. Its sole purpose is to protect rights but it provides for stealing property, e.g., eminent domain and taxation. These fatal flaws are in addition to the mistaken assumption that government(men) will voluntarily limit itself without external force. Those who did not trust government trusted an armed populace to be that external force. Public schools have instilled obedience and servitude. The "land of the free and home of brave" is gone.

Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 11:54am

If only they'd worded the 2nd Amendment better, such as "The government shall have all guns shoved up the citizens' asses whenever they shall desire".

jim campbell (not verified) | Sat, 07/25/2009 - 8:25pm

It would not be much of a reach to consider that you believe a pencil is responsible for a misspelled word, you want the Second Amendment changed, well go do it, in the mean time I've got a couple guns I'll stick up your ass when the government tells us it's o.k.

jetgraphics (not verified) | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 7:26pm

Most readers have missed that the second amendment addresses two distinct groups - the militia (citizenry) who are obligated to fight and die, on command, and the people (sovereigns) who have the inalienable right to arm themselves.

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent.

So technically speaking, gun "regulations" upon the militia do not infringe the rights of the people.

If you were misled to assume 'everyone' was born into citizenship, with attendant civic duties, that's not what the law says. Involuntary servitude being unconstitutional, no one can have citizenship imposed upon them, at birth - unless they were slaves to begin with.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 07/25/2009 - 9:28pm

UNalienable rights, not INalienable. Please read the documents.

America1st (not verified) | Sun, 11/29/2009 - 1:45am

That sure was an important tid bit?????? Grow up.

bob gormley (not verified) | Sat, 07/18/2009 - 12:49pm

Mr Roland is absolutely wrong as He fails to realize The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written right after The American Revolutionary War. At that time there was NO Organized Militia...An able bodied citizenry showed up with their own arms and equipment voluntarily. There has NEVER been any change to The Constitution nor is one allowed regarding the 2nd Amendment and the militia as designated therein. The Dick Act setup an illegal organized "state militia" - the National Guard, illegal under law because the States CANNOT MAINTAIN ANY ARMY!

The 2nd Amendment is what it is, and we know what the Founding Fathers wrote elsewhere in personal and public papers. The recent Supreme Court decision, although verifying the validity of 200 years of interpretation, was nothing but a discussion made to open a can of worms..misinterpretation so as to sneak in more erosion of our rights. Notice the attacks persist even though the Amendment STANDS according to the Court.I am NOT a member of any militia BUT I still believe one thing.. The 2nd Amendment stands and if The US ARMY is not capable due to any reason to repel any invasion of this soil the unorganized citizenry can respond and defend this country for as long as is neccessary till the enemy is defeated or driven from the land.

Charlie (not verified) | Mon, 07/27/2009 - 9:37am

the war ended on october 1781 amnd the Articles of Confereration were ratified in 1781. Because of the defects on the AoC the US Constitution was ratified 6 years after the war in September 1789 and the bill of rights was started in March 1789 and ratified in December 1791 with the preamble - "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

KOPYME (not verified) | Sun, 07/26/2009 - 4:18am

The United States Constitution has been amended 17 times since 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_am...

Nick (not verified) | Mon, 07/20/2009 - 11:15pm

I don't fully agree, nor disagree with either.

The Constitution does allow for the federal government to maintain a military, that being the Navy, which of course did at the time have Marines a fully offensive unit. It did also allow for the funding of an army not to exceed 2 years.

The Constitution also mandates that a Militia exists within the states and assigns to the states the sole authority to appoint the officers. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 & 16 detail the duties of the Militia and how it may be used.

Each state had a Militia Act, some of which are still in force, with the parameters set on the duties and obligation of the men, and officers.

The Second Amendment explains the necessity of the armed citizeny to maintain a free state, and how we are organized into the essential body to enforce the law of the land.

RetSquid (not verified) | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 2:12am

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Anonymous (not verified) | Mon, 07/20/2009 - 9:39am

The author of this comment is right on the money. The second amendment, as well as all of the Bill of Rights, is an unalienable RIGHT. Unalienable means it is a God given right, and can NEVER be repealed, or taken from us. If we all would understand that fact, and act on any attempts to strip us of these rights, we all would be much stronger as a result.

Lese Majeste (not verified) | Sat, 07/25/2009 - 4:04pm

Anytime someone starts babbling that only a militia has the right to bear arms, ask them if the word 'people' in the 2nd Amendment differs from the word 'people' in the 1st Amendment.

Gary Edwards (not verified) | Sat, 07/18/2009 - 8:28pm

I like both comments (Gormley and Roland). You both sound like my kind of American. But, Bob, you don't know your American history if you think that the Colonists were not militarily trained. Many of them had fought in the French and Indian War, and The Seven Years War in Europe. During this time period Europe had been embroiled in centuries of warfare. Many of the Colonists and their fathers and grandfathers had fought in these wars. It was the heritage of all Europeans. It's the reason the Colonists were such fierce fighters - they were flush with battle-hardened and battle-wisened leaders. Many of these men were especially knowledgeable in guerrilla warfare learned from the Indians during the aforementioned French and Indian War. Guerrilla tactics proved devastating to the organised British regulars.

But, hey, all three of us are on the same side. I mean no offense, certainly. I'd fight by your side any day!

Jon Roland (not verified) | Sat, 07/18/2009 - 10:13am

You have some good material here but it is not correct that the Dick Act, or any other statute, cannot be repealed. It also does not forbid state or local gun control statutes, although I would argue that the right recognized by the Second Amendment forbids most of the current ones. (The right itself, not just the Second Amendment.)

It should be made more clear that conscription into the Army is not the same as militia call-up. They are two entirely different things. Despite the Supreme Court decision to the contrary, Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1916), it is unconstitutional to conscript men into the Army, but not to call up militia for the purposes listed: defend against invasion, suppress insurrection, or enforce law. The states or localities, but not the President, may call up militia for disaster response.

The Dick Act was not a step forward. It relegated most men to a new class of militia, the "unorganized militia". Constitutionally, there is not supposed to be any "unorganized" militia. Militia were intended to all be organized, trained, and equipped to a level that would enable them to defeat the Army.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 07/18/2009 - 11:23pm

All three of you need to check your belief systems.

No man has no greater "rights" than any other. No one can tell me what I can and can't own or possess other than under the threat of the barrel. Which is nothing more than a bully (or in the case--organized people doing business as government).

Erosion of rights?! Sounds like slave talk to me. Natural rights exist pre-government, present government, future government or post government.

Introduce yourselves to Lysander Spooner. For the the "that's anarchy" crowd, so what are you saying? Without someone bullying you around you can't behave in a brotherly manner? Then put on your shackles.