Ok, so it's conspiracy theory time, or my google foo just isn't paying off.
I'm trying to find the actual text of the Militia or Dick Act of 1902/3. Even on the .gov sites don't seem to have the text. It's supposed to be title 32 sec 775, but that is just missing from the text and from the beta search on their site. http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml http://uscodebeta.house.gov/browse/prelim@title32&edition=prelim If you look at title 32 there are chapters missing. WTF? On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 3:28 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh and as to gun laws nationally, something I've been reading about is the > Dick Act of 1903. Basically this did away with the ORGANIZED militia, > created the National Guard, and added law to allow those forces to be > federalized. What it also did was create a legal recognition of the > UNORGANIZED militia, being all males between 18-45. So far as I have been > able to find out this has never been over turned. It was also created in > an era when you could literally order machine guns from Sears through the > mail. Until the NFA in the 30s sometime we had no real legislation about > firearms. The prohibition fight had gotten lawyers in an uproar, and > that's why an amendment was required. So some people came up with the idea > that if instead of banning the machine gun outright, they would simply add > a tax to their purchase that required a tax stamp. That's where we got > class 3 from. It's also the way that they made cannabis illegal. Add a > tax stamp, then tell people they can't have them. Immoral legal games if > you ask me. > > Another thing to note is the use of the words "The People". As used in > the constitution this pertains to individual citizens, not the states and > not the federal government. So a plain reading of the 2nd amendment, > taking into account placement of commas and treating them as non-dependent > clauses, the 2nd amendment is to me at least clearly an individual right. > Reading the founders only reenforces this opinion. > > In the end it doesn't matter. They will create whatever legislation they > want, and I will continue to ignore it. > > > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 3:04 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would say that the federal gov't doesn't have the right to legislate on >> intoxicating substances as it is not enumerated in the constitution, and >> that it's an issue that should be totally left up to the states, and that >> it would end up going to the state with the least legislation. Which is >> where I'd say health care belongs as well. Say Mass vs. NH. Mass can have >> it if they want to, but NH doesn't have to (I know which almost counters my >> previous argument, if you consider a privilege of the state). >> >> I've had a hard time with Art. 4 sec 2 for that very reason. It's too >> broad, but it's never been amended, nor do I think any lawyers argue from >> it. >> >> In the end I base my opinions on probably 30 years of reading the >> writings of these men, and the arguments since. I think that the courts >> get it wrong a ton. If you spend time in the writings of Jefferson, Adams, >> Madison, Franklin, Paine and the rest you can plainly see that where we are >> today was not their intent. I am totally of the opinion that if those men >> lived today we would already be in the middle of another revolution/civil >> war. >> >> To my mind we have passed the line into tyranny. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I think it's more an issue of the supremacy clause (Art. 6 clause 2), I >>> > would also argue that even if your opinion was upheld that Art. 4 >>> Section 2 >>> > (The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and >>> > Immunities of Citizens in the several States.) would apply, and >>> therefore >>> > the state that had the least amount of law would basically be the >>> > nationwide standard. >>> > >>> > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either :) >>> > >>> >>> Hmmm ... ok, building on that ... so then you would say that mary-jo >>> is now legal in all states because it is in colorado? >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:358487 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
