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 CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.

 

second amendment2

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. ~ See Related Article

 

**Share this info with others**

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

Source

 

Also see...

Related article added October 1, 2015

Taking Another Look at The Dick Act of 1902...


 

November 3, 2009 - KnowTheLies.com

 

Is this Bill buried 'somewhere' in the Library of Congress? Without seeing the origional Bill and actions taken we can't verify the true intent or result. Even if the 'origional' Bill is found, is there a way to prove it hasn't been altered?...

By removing or adding just one word, 'someone' could change the entire interpertation of this Bill from its origional language... Definately something to think about. ~ KTL

 

Tag this page!
Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 10/20/2015 - 11:42am

looks interesting

kenneth (not verified) | Sun, 10/18/2015 - 2:00am

how is it that not 1 but 2 presidents have broken this law in the last 3 terms of office and they weren't prosecuted? this is the law of our land and by god it should be upheld. I get a speeding ticket and you better believe I have to pay or go to jail. where is justice at now?

Anarchitek (not verified) | Mon, 03/24/2014 - 7:19pm

You're well inside the Twilight Zone! You've left reality in the rear-view mirror, and cannot find your way back! Get over reality. Guns are an extension of your dick! If it's too small, it's TOO SMALL! Having a BIG gun, or a HUNDRED guns, will NOT make up for it! The Constitution treats the QUESTION Of "gun rights" AS a function of a WELL-REGULATED Militia! NOT as a "God-given right", inviolable and sacrosanct like O'Leary's cow! There are TOO MANY lunatics running around, exercising their WANNABE Clint Eastwood personas, making life DANGEROUS for the REST of us! In the LATE 1800's, men began taking OFF their guns, and putting them aside, because they were NOT needed, any longer. There were NO Indians, no gangs of outlaws, no threats to hearth and home. Things have NOT changed that much, in 100+ years! The BIGGEST problem is there are NO JOBS, and DESPERATE MEN will do something, anything, to put food on the table. So, yes, they DO "home invasions"--NOT to ordinary homes, or average homes, BUT to WEALTHY homes, or DRUG-MONEY-rich homes. IF you are NOT one of those, you have nearly NOTHING to worry about. IF you ARE one of those, you ASKED for what happens! If you think people OUGHT to work for you, for sh*t-wages, then, sorry, Charlie, you and your money are NOT long for this world--NOR should they be! IF you're selling drugs, I have NO SYMPATHY, for you KEEPING you ill-gotten gains! You and the a**hole rich guy can get together, and map out a "Defense Plan"--for all the good it will do you. It's just a matter of time, before you find out, there is NO SUCH THING as "enough ammunition"! Veterans of firefights in 'Nam, Korea, and Afghanistan KNOW what that means. You might think you can survive it, but reality is another story! Time to come to Jesus!

2brknot2b...free (not verified) | Tue, 01/28/2014 - 8:54am

The Dick Act neither confirms, nor denies rights. It may reaffirm them, but the rights are God granted, i.e. the right to kaba for the right to self defense, self preservation, self perpetuation, protection of other life, and property.
Marbury v. Madison made plain that any law averse to the Constitution is "null & void." Therefore, all laws repugnant to the Constitution are without force. Only the people can perpetuate the mythos that crafted laws averse to the Constitution are valid, or enforceable.
How do we counter invalid laws? First, we take actions to let our representatives know they have violated their oath, That can mean starting impeachment proceedings, recalls, or finding others to run against them in the next election cycle. Second, we can use the courts, as members of a jury, to nullify laws. Any judge who refuses to acknowledge a nullified law is acting in disobedience to the law, and has broken his sworn oath. There is a reason that oaths are supposed to be on file for all person in office. It is to use as a defense against them in the future. In other words, if they break an oath they have filed, are they any longer eligible to hold the office? Should they not be expelled for violation, or arrested for treason?
Another means to defy the authority is to simply ignore the law. It is called, "Civil Disobedience" and was outlined in the treatise of the same name by Henry David Thoreau. A law which is ignored by the masses holds no authority. If someone is arrested under said law, it is our duty to see to it that a jury of our peers finds us not guilty due to the unconstitutionality of the law, thus nullifying said law.
The last means we have of overturning unconstitutional laws is through open revolt.

The Dick Act conferred no right, did not guarantee any right. Rights can only be guaranteed by God, or the people by the means noted above. Reliance on the Dick Act as a means to continue to keep & bear arms confers on the government the right to limit the right to kaba. They have no right to in any way infringe, "to limit" being only one of its meanings.

Drew Rayner (not verified) | Thu, 07/12/2012 - 8:10pm

A recent article showed that over 2 million hunters went into the woods and hunted in the recent hunting seasons and noone was shot. This was in only 4 midwestern states. That is a huge army and not gathered in only one place (theater in the military term) where they could be defeated as an army. This army does not have to vanquish, as a conquering army would. It would only have to survive.

Anonymous (not verified) | Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:54am

You DO realize the Dick Act died on the House floor in 1902 and never became law, don't you?

J Purkey (not verified) | Sun, 05/23/2010 - 3:52am

The Dick Act of 1902, as written here, has very little to do with the Militia Act of 1903, which is what was passed into law.

I can find NO mention of individual gun rights in what became law in 1903.

Anybody have the full text of Statute 775? I would really like to read it!

Anonymous (not verified) | Sun, 02/17/2013 - 9:21pm

Reinhold (not verified) | Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:33pm

A Disarmed People is the food of tyrants.

What Statute 775 ?

The historical summary describes how the federal money monopoly seized the Control of the State Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.

THE ROOT REFORMS AND THE NATIONAL GUARD
http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1...

The Second Article of the Bill of Rights: "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."

This ain't about duck hunting or invasions to occupy foreign lands. The inalienable right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, SO THAT The People can by force of arms defeat federal usurpation and insurrection by renegade public servants. The federals invaded and occupied the governance of the free States using credit fraud as a coercive weapon.

Force of Arms will readily defeat the insolent defiance and current insurrection. The purported laws notwithstanding, it will be necessary to defeat the force of arms leveled by the renegade federals against The free States and The People thereof. These were abolished by the Founding. It is now a matter of enforcement of Law by The People who by consent erected their own form of governance. It shall never be the prerogative of the Public Servant to make or enforce capricious laws that abrogate the established Rights, Power and Authority of The People whom the shall serve.

Insolence shall not be tolerated. Resistance to the power of The People is futile.

Renegade Public Servants shall stand down or fall where they stand.

Reinhold (not verified) | Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:31pm

A Disarmed People is the food of tyrants. What Statute 775 ?

The historical summary describes how the federal money monopoly seized the Control of the State Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.

THE ROOT REFORMS AND THE NATIONAL GUARD http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm The Second Article of the Bill of Rights: "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."

This ain't about duck hunting or invasions to occupy foreign lands. The inalienable right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, SO THAT The People can by force of arms defeat federal usurpation and insurrection by renegade public servants.

The federals invaded and occupied the governance of the free States using credit fraud as a coercive weapon. Force of Arms will readily defeat the insolent defiance and current insurrection.

The purported laws notwithstanding, it will be necessary to defeat the force of arms leveled by the renegade federals against The free States and The People thereof. These were abolished by the Founding.

It is now a matter of enforcement of Law by The People who by consent erected their own form of governance. It shall never be the prerogative of the Public Servant to make or enforce capricious laws that abrogate the established Rights, Power and Authority of The People whom the shall serve.

Insolence shall not be tolerated. Resistance to the power of The People is futile. Renegade Public Servants shall stand down or fall where they stand.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 05/22/2010 - 11:13am

The Dick Act of 1903(not 1902, the 1902 act did not pass the house). Setup for a three tiered Militia system. 1) National Militia(regular Army, and Navy) 2)State level Militia(National Guard) 3) UNREGULATED Militia (all male citizens between 17 and 43(Welcome to Sparta!)) and setups The National Guard training requirements, that Guard members must be paid, and that National Guard CAN NOT be sent outside of the US borders for ANY reason.(this alone gives us the means to charge both bushes with crimes and impeach Obama for not bringing them home, plus charging him in civilian court for not stopping the already committed crime, which is his duty.)The National Guard members can not be conscripted into the National militia. (This is why people joined the guard during Vietnam and Nixon refused to send Guard units over seas.)

Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 12/19/2012 - 10:23am

The Dick Act does not say this. I am not for Gun Control, do not get me wrong, but people will read and see what they believe. The law states and I Quote "regularly enlisted, organized, and uniformed active militia", not about unorganized, or unregulated militia. But I would like to see your sources.

Constitutional, student of Law (not verified) | Sun, 08/01/2010 - 10:43pm

The curiosities surrounding the Dick Act implications speak to the question of asserted LEGALITY of the:

"Northern Command"(google and learn, in re Hosea 4-6 "My people parrish, for a lack of KNOWLEDGE!"

The "Northern Command" is a Posse Commitatus, CONjugator created Force to be acvtivated in case of National Emergency to "preserve the Publick SAFTEY, and preserve the Publick Health, under the pretense of the Dept. Homeland Security,Janet Napolitano) and the D.Health and Human Service(Cathleen Sebellius)set up to Put BOOTS on the NECKS of Americans(To Keep them SAFE like Avatar's protection and saving the "indigenous Peoples{That's We THE PEOPLE folks!}

Be vewy vewy carefull the Those CRAFTY satesmen are vewy vewy Clever as YOU may have Noticed the ASSIMILATION of ALL POWERS of Government(in explicit abrogation of the Mandated Separations provide for pursuant to: the Constitution 1789!

It seems that an insidious, subversive cabal of Canaanite conjugators CRAFTed a NEW type of LAW in the Late 1800's
under an ANCIENT secret mystic Cult of: Baal worshippers(combine Cain and Baal to get Cannibal)Baal's consort: Ashtoreth{Lilith}conceived of the hideous practice of CHILD SACRIFICE and Lesbianism/Homosexuality).

Their NEW LAW: "jus fetiale"(Blacks 6th pg695)fatal Law in International Law(note: O'bama is an Internationlist) and CONjured,(as to call up an EVIL SATANIC spirit,
(hence CON-SPIRIT-ors)up the "jus publicum" (Blacks 6th, pg"696")read:

Public LAW 1. Roman & civil Law. The "public law of crimes", of "officers of the PRIESTHOOD"(what priesthood?),

and of the "status" of persons (as "standing in re; tribunal/court, under the religion of SATAN"!)

2. the RIGHT, title, or dominion of "public ownership"; esp. the "government's" right to own "real property" for the "public benefit"! as opposed to jus privatum / (private Law).

You may properly NOTE: this "NEW" as not existent in the "jus naturale"; natural LAW of the Creator of the Universe YhwH, or the Constitution 1789 is frequently asserted in error? (or FICTION of what is but "termed" law)
as: "ADMINISTRATIVE"(management)or Statutory Law, of the sovereign nation states of the Union, on the Continent of America. Constitutionally speaking; your standing and imparticular, your "Citizenship," is "MONUMENTALLY" important, as you read and apply the Constitution to your STATE or NATION! May I humbly suggest: "Not my Government.org" for your personal edification!

May the true GOD of Israel; Yhwh, Save, Bless and Protect this new Jeruselum, from the EVIL cabal of the BLACK Robed Cult of Baal worhsipers and their coCONsprirtors: masonic attorneys, lawyers and other CORRUPT Politicos and Officios acting as Christians and Israelly Jews; but whom are in fact: of the "13th Tribe," of BABBYLon whom posed as Jews, but in truth are the Canaanites,the cursed of GOD, sons and worhipers of the DEVIL and as the "Father of Masonry in America" Albert Pike, author of "Morals an Dogma' the SELF professed: "GRAND PONTIFF of SATAN", AHMEM

Oh and by the way I am pretty sure thet the Presidentium of the Polit Beareau and subversive imposter in Chief is a member in good satanding of the Prince Albert Hall of the Masonic Order, whom knows? May be he too is a Grand Pontiff in fact and at Law and therefor; Highky Treasonous?

Mihail (not verified) | Wed, 03/17/2010 - 5:05am

Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.” (The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).

“It is legitimate to adopt a critical attitude toward the relatively large number of Jews who particularly in the first decade after the Bolshevik revolution collaborated with the Soviet Government in the persecution of other peoples.” — Statement of researcher Michael Mills, an official of the government of Australia at Canberra. (Source: Forward, March 10, 2000)

— Robert Wilton, a long time Russia correspondent for the London Times, said in his book The Last Days of the Romanovs:

“According to the data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State there were in 1918-1919: 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Lets, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 2 Poles, 2 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.

“As the decades past by — after the fateful year 1917 — Judaized Khazars kept a firm hand on the helm of the government in the occupied land of Russia. In due time they built a bureaucracy to their heart’s desire.”

“The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 143-144).

The American Hebrew September 10, 1920:

“The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.”

“The Jews welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 148).

“We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America.” (The Jew, December 1925, Zinobit).

Kevin (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 7:49pm

Dave is right regarding his comments. Laws that endanger individual life and liberty are unjust. A person has the right to self defense without respect to any individual that would attempt to deny it with evil intent. The ultimate goal of gun control is to make the citizenry defenseless victims. Do not be duped.

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 5:03pm

Ahh the Dick act... when your government tries to fuck you.

Dave (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 12:35pm

I no longer care about little laws that bolster our side of the debate,the debate is over for me and millions of others.
I don't care what our congress decides
I don't care what some judge declares
I don't care what the supreme court decides
I don't care if we end up in some global government whose tyrannical leader invokes the death penalty for gun ownership,I shall never relinquish my weapons of defense from tyranny and slavery to my government,any other government or any group of people.
The 20th century is blood soaked proof of what inevitably happens to those that are disarmed.
Heed its lesson.

93rdCurrent (not verified) | Sun, 08/01/2010 - 1:58pm

You are right and there are millions of us if not a couple billion. The unjust can write down whatever makes them feel safe on paper, they can hire the few mercenaries out there willing to sell their souls for money (erik prince) but they will never be safe from me or others while they are on the side of tyrrany. The fight is coming and we are already prepared. More people need to wake up and stand up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-diMne...

Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 03/17/2010 - 2:00pm

dearest dave, you are completely irrational and insane. complying with government decisions is part of your precious citizenship. you should make friends with my buddy eston.

Patrick (not verified) | Sun, 05/23/2010 - 6:12pm

Isn't it typical of the left, the far left, and the extreme left to write "anonymously". Too scared to do anything except parrot something they have heard and have never researched and no nothing about, and never intend to know anything about. Poor souls!

You, Mr. Anonymous, forget that Americans were given inalienable rights granted by God, not our government. Our government, in its founding, recognized these inalienable rights and so wrote that down for all to read. It is only the left, BY THE EVIDENCE, that tries endlessly to strip this nation of those rights. I agree with Dave (target of Mr. Anonymous!), "(paraphrase)...who cares what laws are passed, our rights in gun ownership and self protection are what they are, inalienable. It is the law that is illegal."
Now if we want to discuss who is bound to obey what law, let's take a close look at the current US Government and see that our President, called so by some, and the idiot who heads our Homeland Security, J. Napolitano, are not only turning their backs on their sworn oath to uphold the immigration laws, they are working actively against the states who are doing nothing more than calling them out for not performing their duties as sworn public servants. That, folks , is the real crime! Mr. Anonymous, get a life ... preferably somewhere else!

chiefosage (not verified) | Mon, 07/16/2012 - 9:39am

Most who believe we should comply with all laws are indoctrinated in benevolant brotherhood. Masons have conspired secretly in a broad manner to make our gun laws subject to their New World Order out of Chaos. "order aub chao." One must choose, but choose wisely.

nolan (not verified) | Sat, 03/20/2010 - 8:48pm

And what if they passed a law that said, oh, I don't know, that all Jews should be rounded up? Should I be a good citizen and blindly follow that law?
The entire point of the Constituion is that we consent to be governed, by laws to which we, as a whole aggree to, but you know as well as I that citzenship is not following the orders of gov't over the cliff.
Do you think that we may ever reach a point in our history again that we need to excercise our Right to alter or abolish?

Degas (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 6:03pm

Amen Dave...the debate is over! They've made their intentions to enslave us clear.

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 3:22pm

Exactly

David (not verified) | Tue, 03/16/2010 - 2:24am

As God may grant certain rights to us, it must be understood that the preservation and maintenance of those rights is the responsibility of each individual claiming them.

It is apparent that the primary reason for including gun ownership in the Constitution as a right was specifically to allow for protection against government encroachment upon the citizenry.

Locking guns away is a logical expectation in the absence of the owner. But in and around my own home my weapons will always be easier to access than my front door knob is.

If an uninvited intruder makes an appearance with dubious intent, the last thing on my mind will be what the legal ramifications will be because I sent him to meet his maker.

mark (not verified) | Tue, 04/27/2010 - 8:43pm

the second amendment is not to hunt or for self protection against criminals. the second amendment is self protection against the government. Technically under the framers intent any weapon the government has we should be able to have. The intent was the government NEVER became more powerful than the people. Read the federalist papers as well as the writings of the founders and it is perfectly clear. 1) speak your greivances 2) fight for your greivances, just like the history of our founding.

Grady (not verified) | Sat, 02/20/2010 - 3:49pm

The National Guard can be deployed outside of the states because when you are sworn in it is the oath to do as directed by the commander in chief. Even though as for myself I would have a hard time to take orders from the commander in chief at this time since I don't think he knows what he is doing.The comment at the start is true since I served in both the guard and regualar Army.

Drew (not verified) | Wed, 07/14/2010 - 11:13pm

We do not have a commander and chief at this time. We have a narcicistic(or however it is spelled) 12 yr old. DO NOT TURN IN YOUR WEAPONS, EVER. REMEMBER HITLER HAD GUN REGISTRATION, and we all know how that turned out. Like Charleton Hesten said "From my cold dead hands." There are a lot of us out there who feel the same way, the day they come to take them away is the day we take THEM away with us!

Bud Parker (not verified) | Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:34am

In the case of a State Militia (National Guard) the Commander-In-Chief would logically be the Governor. As we all know, over a long period of time the history and knowledge of American Law and procedures has been obscured greatly. This subject of The Dick Act testifies to that. Not one American out of a thousand could tell you what the subject is!

The Nazis... First, before their intentions became clear, they registered all firearms. Name, address, serial numbers, make model,... Then, when the time was right, they simply knocked on your door, with armed guards, and confiscated the nation's firearms. The rest, as they say, is history.

Admiral Zummie (not verified) | Wed, 03/17/2010 - 1:25am

The commander in Chief knows exactly what he's doing. And he is getting away with it. The underlying factor is that the factions involved are intent on destroying our way of life and the commander in chief is the dupe that is used for implementing this take-over. BEWARE OF STRANGERS BEARING GIFTS, for these gifts will be our undoing.