Dick Act Of 1902 Forbidding Gun Control Can’t Be Repealed

Civil Rights Task Force of Northern Nevada  February 2013

Protection Against Tyrannical Government

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917 ~ 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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

 

2 thoughts on “Dick Act Of 1902 Forbidding Gun Control Can’t Be Repealed

  1. Any law that goes against the Constitution is Null and Void period as it is the Supreme law of the land and no law made can supercede it. Actualy they aren’t laws they are only in appearance of laws. Anyone who makes such laws are called Tyrants and should be in fear of Rope. Rights are backed by laws the Supreme laws of the Constitution. Armed American citizens are the largest armed force on this planet so who is gonna take what from who?

  2. I can understand the passion of the rights to bear arms … and as this world goes .. we are living in times of choices which will follow us in the here-after …

    Mother Earth is a choosing ground .. as such a ground even allows an individual to experience the effects of choices having been made …

    We even have a right to Love or to hate … but when that right crosses the line bringing hurt or harm or danger to another solely based on that right to hate …

    Then a law can and must limit the privilege of that right, for the protection of others living within the bounds of their rights ….

    As so it should be with guns … and if the right to bear arms is based on the ability to protect one’s family … then a law should consider just how many guns is necessary to accurately protect one‘s family …

    The law should consider things like; what to extent of force is necessary for a gun to have as to accurately protect one’s family … and to consider matters such as what is a necessary count of guns needed to accurately protect one’s family … then consider matters such as what is the mental stability of every gun owner … and what are the necessary safety steps to be taken as to protect the gun owner from harming his or her self, any member of that family and the resident of that community (ect) … and finally the law should consider at what point do an advocator of rights, become an abuser of rights … or simply a bully imposing on the privileges of those right …

    Because that’s all any right is … is a privilege that can be taken away at any time .. until a law enforces that right …

    So as I can understand the passion of the rights to bear arms … I can’t understand the misguided power of privileges which have no laws to back them up … and until gun rights advocators can come at governing officials with the backing of gun laws … all this shouting of rights are as a whispered warning in a machine factory of defining noise ..

    And to governing officials who knows the power of rights backed by no law … I’m sure they might all be saying … I hear you humming but I don’t see you coming …

Please leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.