Dick Act of 1902... Can't Be Repealed (Gun Control Forbidden) - Protection Against Tyrannical Gover

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 CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

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 CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

knowthelies.com

I read this on the website posted above, and thought that it is very important for those Americans who care about our Constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment right for ALL Americans to own and bear arms.

This article also deals with the conscription of National Guards which Congress and the President should only have limited power over them, yet for some unknown reason we have seen the largest deployments of National Guards to the Middle East, and to Kosovo, as in the case of the Wyoming National Guard.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18 Jul 09 by Gools]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I have to admit, I got this in an email earlier today and was debating as to whether or not if I should post it but seeing as you had beaten me to it.
On the subject itself, I had tried a bit to look for the full text of the original bill that was passed but I have had little luck other than the snippets included. The Congressional database can't be expected to be much better as they only go back for so many years, otherwise someone would have better luck checking out a university's library or else the Library of Congress for something if anyone here is near Washington DC.

This is something that people really need to read.

It shows just how corrupt and anti-Constitutional our government really has become.


Great post Electric!

I've known about this for awhile. I hope you're able to make more people aware of it, but really what good does it do when the government's already been sending the Guard out of the country.

The laws are written to enslave us, not to keep the government honest.

Star and flag for you Op

I applaud your efforts to share this knowledge, without which, many Americans will, in ignorance, passively accept the most un-American practices of the two-headed political-party that have monopolized control of the government.

Very good find!

I hope someone can find out more on this.

S & F for you on this one!

Pass it around.....

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Excellent find, but will this really make a difference? I ask this in all sincerity. When our Govt. gets ready to take our guns, they will have a plan to get it done. Legalities be hanged, as our Govt. has proven repeatedly, and as you have pointed out concerning the deployment of the State militias on foreign soil. I take heart in one thing: for every one of our boys that goes "over there", when he returns, he is a well trained fighting machine and most have a deep love of country (not of Govt.) and will be willing to defend this land from all threats to our liberties, both foreign AND domestic (our Govt.). If and when an armed revolution should occur, those men will be on the front lines, leading the charge.

The danger, as I see it, is the Govt. is boiling the frog VERRRRRY SLOWWWWLY and the frog is nearly done.

If the PTB actually do have a plan to to take your guns away it wont be Obama or the next president...or the next...or the next etc etc It will be a very slow process and wont have anything to do with legislation being passed but cultural indoctrination that will take two or so generations to work.It was actually you that posted this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... and while i dont agree with everything he says his view on changing the ideology of a populace is imo what will eventually lead to a ban on guns...it wont be forced,people will want them banned.

So what... It's just another law.

Remember Kellogg Briand? The law that made wars illegal? Well it's still here and the composer, US, is beating the crap out of the Middle East.


Laws are only as good as the people who wrote it.

As an aside to this, but not off topic, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide any power for offensive warfare i.e. Iraq or the Korean War. We are only supposed to fight defensively as stated in the preamble of the Constitution, "to Provide for the common DEFENSE."

The Militia (all able bodied men between 18-45 at that point, now I would say able bodied person of any age, male or female) would provide this defense force. The basic right of self defense is the first basic law of the universe, if attacked you will instinctively defend your life with whatever means at your disposal. This concept was so basic to the founders that it was placed into the Bill of Rights so that it could never be removed (they thought). To avoid the tyranny of a standing army "the people" (where the power of government flows from in the US) were to provide the defense. A free people must be able to defend themselves. Hence we have,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The people were to arm and train themselves.

This is an excellent topic OP, I however have trouble recognizing anything beyond the second amendment as having any validity whatsoever. It says it all and says it so very plainly... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

There is simply no need (or legal ability to pass legislation infringing) for any law beyond the 2a. But look where we are...

people forget that America is a Republic, with 50 States, and each state makes their own rules. if a law is not in the constitution, and not a state-law, it's legal.

Originally posted by DisgustedOne
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Excellent find, but will this really make a difference? I ask this in all sincerity. When our Govt. gets ready to take our guns, they will have a plan to get it done. Legalities be hanged, as our Govt. has proven repeatedly, and as you have pointed out concerning the deployment of the State militias on foreign soil. I take heart in one thing: for every one of our boys that goes "over there", when he returns, he is a well trained fighting machine and most have a deep love of country (not of Govt.) and will be willing to defend this land from all threats to our liberties, both foreign AND domestic (our Govt.). If and when an armed revolution should occur, those men will be on the front lines, leading the charge.

The danger, as I see it, is the Govt. is boiling the frog VERRRRRY SLOWWWWLY and the frog is nearly done.

You're absolutely correct! For every one military member that will toe the government line, there are several that will stand to oppose them. I'm rather confident that if this went down, the government (and all the suits in it) would get their @$$es handed to them in record time. Then we'd just have to go down to the hardware store, buy up the rope and use the light poles around D.C. for patriotic decorating of the city with the "blood of tyrants" as Thomas Jefferson said.

Originally posted by bettermakings
people forget that America is a Republic, with 50 States, and each state makes their own rules. if a law is not in the constitution, and not a state-law, it's legal.

There are plenty in the Government that would call you a Terrorist for thinking like that, much less saying it. I happen to agree with you completely. The best thing that could happen to this nation is the end of the Federal Government in it's current form, to be replaced with a Constitutional Federal Government that could not "interpret" the Constitution. By returning the Federal Government to the miniscule form it was supposed to always have, the States would retain their rights to govern themselves as they see fit. The whole reason we are a collection of States United, is that what works for California, probably won't work for Oklahoma. What works for Texas, may not work for Washington State.

The best thing that could happen to this nation and its people is the collapse of the Federal Government with the States refusing to allow it to rebuild to it's present strength. Make the Federal Government exist solely within the frameworks provided in the Constitution, and we'd all do just fine.

I know wikipedia isn't a credible source, but:

"The Militia Act of 1903 resulted in the creation of the modern National Guard Bureau which is the federal instrument responsible for the administration of the National Guard of the United States established by the United States Congress as a joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. This was changed by the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which elevated the National Guard to a joint function of the Department of Defense."

Not only that, but the national guard has been used overseas since WWII

Not saying I support it, just that I don't think we can all up the dick act, aka the militia act and say national guard troops must stay home. I also don't think I could buy a machine gun and cite the dick act as the reason why I can own it...

reply to post by DisgustedOne


excuse me for being vague but....this def holds true

www.army.mil...

The problem we face is that the government is full of lawyers. They know how to write the laws so the average man has a hard time following the "letter" of the law, however they also know how to manipulate the system (twist the words, if you like) to suit their purposes.

Two ways I know of to circumvent our laws:

International treaty - any treaty that they can ratify with other countries"in our best interest," such as with Canada and Mexico for the Amero monetary system, or the intercontinental hiway that we are paying for but will not own or control. Point being, if any treaty includes gun control, it would supercede any law we have.

No ammo - even scarier. If we the people run out of ammo quickly, and there is no more available, they gain the upper hand. They already imposed a rule (maybe a law, not sure) that requires the military to shred the used casings that used to be sold to reloaders, thereby diminishing the supply. Taxing it out of exsistence is another possibility.


My point is really this. Guns are great, but to beat or rebuild our government, we need to outsmart them, not complacently go along with the same old acceptance of incompetence and failure from self indulgent power mongers. We MUST use all the tools at our disposal. This may mean guns someday, but think what an overload of emails from the citizens of this country, so powerful and numerous that it crashes the congressional web servers would do. Not only would you gain the attention of the government, but it would "actually" get media attention,, and in these time, turning the media over to our side may be the greatest ally we could have.

Think about it, and please someone with more time to spend organizing such an endeavor, take charge and run with it, set a date and time, get it out around the world, and see what kind of power we really have.

Love and peace,
an average joe

reply to post by soldier8828


Ummm.... I think you are agreeing with me..... I dunno, I was US NAVY Seabee, our creed was "I think I'll have another round..."

Just kidding. I have the deepest respect for ALL of our service members. They are the only ones you can count on, most of the time.

Thanks everyone for the stars, and flags.
I just hope the original article is given to as many Americans as possible.
I think it is time the govenrment started working for the people. But of course that is too much to ask.

Originally posted by merkaba93
As an aside to this, but not off topic, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide any power for offensive warfare i.e. Iraq or the Korean War. We are only supposed to fight defensively as stated in the preamble of the Constitution, "to Provide for the common DEFENSE."
..........

In the case of the National Guard what you are saying is true. However, even during the time of the forefathers the United States went to other countries to fight wars.

The first largest war the U.S. was involved in was the Barbary Wars. The first one was in 1801-1805, the second was in 1815-1816.

The U.S. went to war with many North African Islamic nations because they were attacking, killing crew which included Americans as well as passengers, and raiding any ships bound from Europe to the U.S. and from the U.S. to Europe.

Those were the first wars we fought against Islamic extremists. The Marine anthem mentions these wars. "From the halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli".

However, the National Guard should not be used for any such wars.

It is very strange that at a time of economic crisis we have the largest deployments in most, if not all states of the National Guard.

I find this extremely strange, more so when President Obama promised that he would bring our troops home, yet the contrary is happening. we are having the largest deployments since WWII, and for may states the largest deployments in the history of many American states. Something is not right imo.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

BTW Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to try to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, and here is what happened.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]

www.answers.com...

Does the above sound familiar to anyone?