Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Gun control is illegal, period?

  1. #1
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Found this on another site I visit. I didnt read the entire article because I'm at work. If some of the legal-eagles can go through it and decifer the info that would be good!

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 CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) -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

    *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.*

    *** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ***
    http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=forward&path=node/3949

    *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    *The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills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*


    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Then... the incorporation of the National Guard into the 'Total Force Package' of the Army is illegal? So... Iraq and A'stan NG units have been mobilized under Title 10 USCillegally. 'Seems three President have stomped on their 'Dick' (act).

  3. #3
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Yes, gun control is "illegal", period. It's called the Second Amendment. "shall not be infringed" is pretty dang clear.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Yes, gun control is "illegal", period. It's called the Second Amendment. "shall not be infringed" is pretty dang clear.
    Yeah... but somehow all these over educated'control' weenies can't comprehend that simple statement.

  5. #5
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Problem is when this crap started way back when, people just rolled over and said "It's not that bad.....we can put up with this." If it had been stopped before it started, by people saying NO to infringement, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.

  6. #6
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Small seeming acts that are illegal snowball into a large mess and that is what we have today!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    autosurgeon wrote:
    Small seeming acts that are illegal snowball into a large mess and that is what we have today!
    ..........except in Alaska and Vermont!!!:celebrate

    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Why is it so hard in the last 50 years or so, to bring this kind of info to BOTH the courts, AND the mass media, at the SAME TIME?? and we can finally set things right.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Good find! These days i guess the media and courts only avide by what they want to abide by. Yet I agree how was this swept under the rug so long?



    Ben

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    I think Article III, Section 3 came before Dick!

    Gun control=criminal safety, victim disarmament, an accessory to countless crimes, rapes, and murders.

    If it isn't an act of war against the U.S. by giving aid and comfort to our closest enemies, I don't know what is.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    Why is it so hard in the last 50 years or so, to bring this kind of info to BOTH the courts, AND the mass media, at the SAME TIME?? and we can finally set things right.
    The problem with the courts started with the Slaughterhouse cases and US v. Cruikshank. Those two decisions, then later combined with US v. Miller have created a court environment lasting almost 100 years with almost nothing but anti gun decisions uninterrupted until Heller, and even that was only a teeny tiny start with a LOT to turn around.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 w

    *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 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.*







    But yet Senator Lautenburg from New Jersey brought a new law to be passed, that

    anybody who had ever been convicted of spousal abuse, couldn't have a gun.

    (Just giving it in most basic terms). This also included everybody no matter what

    your job was as far as the police or military. This is an example, of an ex post facto

    law that was made into a law, illegally as far as i'm concerned.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Phoenix AZ, ,
    Posts
    163

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Then... the incorporation of the National Guard into the 'Total Force Package' of the Army is illegal? So... Iraq and A'stan NG units have been mobilized under Title 10 USCillegally. 'Seems three President have stomped on their 'Dick' (act).
    Not exactly.


    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm




    The Militia Act of 1903--together with its 1908 amendment--was, in the words of a leading historian of the National Guard, "the most important national legislation in militia history." The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support. There was a one-time grant of $2 million to modernize equipment, and states could now use federal funds to pay for summer training camps. The War Department would now fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and Regular officers would be detailed to serve as inspector-instructors with Guard units. There would be joint Regular-Guard maneuvers and training camps. In return for all this, the act gave the President the power to call the Organized Militia--that is, the National Guard--into federal service for up to nine months' service to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws, but not for service outside the United States. Guardsmen had to answer a presidential call or face court-martial, and states had to organize, equip, and train their units in accordance with the organization, standards, and procedures of the Regular Army. Finally, if Guard units failed to meet certain standards of training and administration as set by the War Department, they would lose their federal support.

    In 1908 the act was amended. The nine-month limit on federal service was deleted; the President would now set the length of federal service. The ban on Guard units serving outside the United States was dropped. Clearly establishing the Guard's role as the Army's reserve force, the amended act stated that during a mobilization the Guard had to be called before the Army could organize a federal volunteer force. Also in 1908, Congress agreed to increase the annual federal subsidy of the Guard to $4 million, and the War Department established the Division of Militia Affairs. The division served as the link between the department and the state adjutants general, supervised the distribution of equipment and supplies to the states, evaluated Guard training and administration, and acted as the militia's representative to the General Staff.
    Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

    Clyde

  14. #14
    Lone Star Veteran Gator5713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Aggieland, Texas, USA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    'Gun Control': The ability to effectively handle all of the features of the selected firearm, including, but not limited to HITTING WHAT YOU AIM AT!


    Sorry, had to....
    Back to the topic now...

    This could be a fun one to bring up in court! Anyone know of any big cases going on currently? Sending this to the attorney could definitely help!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" Charlton Heston

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGw555bASuQ

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post



    Whats the best thing you would say to a critic who thinks that having guns in the home increases the possibility of someone getting hurt?

    Im having a little trouble with this right now, and would appreciate some back up. Alink to some factual concrete info would be nice.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    *

    Whats the best thing you would say to a critic who thinks that having guns in the home increases the possibility of someone getting hurt?

    Im having a little trouble with this right now, and would appreciate some back up. Alink to some factual concrete info would be nice.
    http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gun_safety.HTM

    This comes from the thoroughly debunked Kellerman study. Dr. Gary Kleck, a highly respected criminologist, debunked Kellerman's 43 times more likely to get injured by a firearm if there is one in the home. Dr. Schaffer has also debunked that "study" as being suspect. Kleck's book, POINT BLANK, in which he debunked the Kellerman study, which even Kellerman admits is wrong, received the 1993 Michael Hindelang Award, the highest award that the American Society of Criminologists gives. It has been reviewed by Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, perhaps the nation's most prestigious criminologist, and he declared it be accurate, well-researched and that he would rely on Kleck's conclusions.
    The short version is:
    "Having guns in the home increases the possibility of criminals getting hurt to the point where they will no longer be a threat to you to 100%. No guns means that possibility is 0%."

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:


    Whats the best thing you would say to a critic who thinks that having guns in the home increases the possibility of someone getting hurt?

    Im having a little trouble with this right now, and would appreciate some back up. Alink to some factual concrete info would be nice.
    http://www.gunfacts.info/
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Im already aware of that one, but thank you, it is an excellent source.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Looks like this may have been amended about a century ago:

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •