D I C K Act of 1902... Can't Be Repealed

[krome2ez]

D I C K ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED

(GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)

The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress

Further Asserting

the Second Amendment as Untouchable

Re- Posted Juy 24, 2012

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The D I C K Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902

Edited January 24, 2013 by krome2ez

[wpsmit]

Nice bit of research, krome!

[DinarMillionaire]

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.

Great find Krome! I like it.

[Jaxinjersey]

Excellent Krome... nice to see the clarity of the "debate" put into it's true context and narrative. The type of gun, amount of guns, and amount of ammo does not matter.

[Liljohn]

Thanks Krome, you just beat me to it. I had just been reading the original notes on the law, and was getting ready to post it. Good job.

GOD BLESS!!! LORD SEND THE RAIN!!!

[sxsess]

Thanks krome I just sent this to Cornyn, McConnell, Olsen. This really is all we need to trump any liberal law that is passed from here on out! Like I said before, any law passed that has to do with infringing on my 2nd Ammendment rights will never apply to me and my family.

[Deltori]

It's like they've known for a long time that our government would grow to a point of tyranny and therefore they built iron clad protections for our rights as free citizens and wanted to gaurantee that we would have the tools necessary to fight against such tyranny.

[jaman]

The D I C K 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.

and yet this president sent our guy and gals to the middle east....were is congress ?

[Francie26]

I am extremely glad to read this, and our senators and congressmen may need to be told about it. But I need to understand something . . . why can't it be repealed?

[Biker]

I just pray it will be an impeachebal evnt if this Moron trys to youse an executive order to act on it. Id be in my glory.

[leanonme]

Wow! what a great find this article is! Hale Yea!

[divemaster5734]

Ironic name, isn't it?

Even though that's the generals last name that sponsored it, it is also intended to keep the POTUS or government from being one...