Civil Rights Task Force of Northern Nevada
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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917
7 thoughts on “Dick Act of 1902… Can’t be Repealed (Gun Control Forbidden)”
Excellent article diggerdan! I really enjoyed reading it. Would you mind if I pass it around so that others can read it? All credit would go to you and to fromthetrenchesworldreport.com credit and be linked.
All your facts are correct!
I agree that the problem is finding constitutional sheriffs to ENFORCE the – LAWFUL – laws instead of those UNLAWFUL ones being “enforced” today. Just because our representatives – state or federal – create a “law” or “bill” does NOT make it lawful here in the USA.
In regards to ““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…”
The US Constitution itself shows us this when it lists the duties of the legislative branch also:
How many here realize that all those serving in the legislative branch have committed a felony? Misappropriation of Funds is the (one of the) felonies committed by them. Misappropriation of Funds is the illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, etc.
How you might ask? US Constitution, Article 1, Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.
The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allotted time of two years of supporting a “standing military” must be returned to the people; and my understanding of the law is that it can come back to the people from those who are serving within the congress own private funds. I might be wrong here, but I really hope that I am not. it would teach them a very big lesson.
Also understand that just because they pretend it is a law, or a bill; and that they can get some very ignorant people – or deliberately traitorous – to enforce them still does NOT make it lawful here in OUR nation. It would be in Stalin’s Russia – or maybe even in Russia today; in Hitler’s Germany, Japan, (you should get the picture now) but NOT here.
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” is really straightforward, and no misunderstanding of the words can be used as an excuse for disobeying that duty. No standing army except in times of war, and ONLY the congress can declare *war. War must be declared by congress to be a lawful war our US military are used to fight in.
War cannot lawfully be “declared” against a tactic such as the “war against terror” or the “war against drugs”; both are not wars and not even the congress can declare a war against a tactic. (*War defined: ‘Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations’. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/war).
Clause 12 was put in as a duty of congress because, as James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution warned: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare”.
Well Thanks Cal 🙂 , however all I did was posted this article. I am sure that the author/writer of this article would be more than happy for this article to be passed around to as many like minded people as possible. I am glad that you liked this article 🙂 Keep the faith Cal.
The Dick Act was not passed into law by congress or signed into law by the president. Do some more research and you will find it was not signed into law.
The constitution already has the 2nd amendment which defends the right to keep and bear arms!
There you go. You only have to tell them once, if you are ready to enforce your words. When you say it a second time, hell, you have already been punked.
I like the way Mark Koernke puts it, and you have to do it with a fag accent, “Stop, or I’ll say stop again.”
This shit will stop when we physically stop it, and not until, nor under any other circumstance.
I see ADL.org has a commie jew that writes articles for the po-po, where he specifically calls out civil rights task force bumper stickers as potential threats! They won’t be satisfied until the US is just “Greater Palistine”.