I even found this on a Tennessee Gun Owners site claiming what you said is a croc...
http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/58555-militia-act-of-1903-32-stat-77 5-aka-the-dick-act/ I am not sure where you got that info Tim, but I would advise against going there in the future... -----Original Message----- From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:05 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control Hey Eric, a little reading on the Dick Act: GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN --- bit of History (While some cite the passage date of HR 11654 as June 28, 1902, others state January 1903) The Militia Act of 1903 , also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish-American War of 1898 . U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia, sponsored the 1903 Act DICK ACT of 1903... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28,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. 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 The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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 On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Eric Roberts < ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > False...the Dick act does not forbid gun control, Maybe you need to > read it again? > > -----Original Message----- > From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:12 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: RE: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control > > > The dick act actall prohibits gun control, creates the national guard > and allows it to be federalized, and creates the state defense forces, > state only, non-deployable aka the real militia. You should probably > read laws before quoting them. > On Jan 10, 2013 5:03 PM, "Eric Roberts" > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> > wrote: > > > > > State's national guard...aka the militia as per the Militia Act of > > 1903 (aka the Dick Act) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:13 AM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control > > > > > > In the hands of the police, military and the state's National Guard. > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:03 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Right, so you agree then that they can certainly be useful. > > > On Jan 10, 2013 10:56 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" <larrycly...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> because its smaller and less awkward to deal with in enclosed spaces. > > >> Notice that they also haul out the shotguns or rifles when needed. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hand gun are not unnecesary. Why do the military and law > > >> > enforcement > > >> carry > > >> > them? Security guards? > > >> > > > >> > Concealable firearms are in many instances far more useful than > > >> > long > > >> guns. > > >> > On Jan 10, 2013 10:05 AM, "GMoney" <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> OK. > > >> >> > > >> >> Outlaw the import, sale, manufacture and possession of hand guns. > > >> >> > > >> >> In the near term, only criminals will have hand guns...the > > >> >> rest of us > > >> will > > >> >> have shot guns or rifles or whatever brand of assault rifle we > > >> >> see > > fit. > > >> As > > >> >> the years go by, the number of hand guns will decrease to the > > >> >> point > > >> where > > >> >> they are relatively rare. > > >> >> > > >> >> I don't pretend that there is any solution that represents a > > >> >> panacea. I just know that hand guns are unnecessary, serve no > > >> >> purpose other than to aid criminals, we'd be better off > > >> >> without them, the status quo is unacceptable, and any short > > >> >> term pain required to make things better in > > >> the > > >> >> long run...is worth it, in my opinion. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > So, dispute it. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > . > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Larry C. Lyons < > > >> larrycly...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > can you parrot any other NRA talking point, I mean try for > > >> >> > > a > > >> trifecta > > >> >> > > here. Really Sam, ever try for anything original? That > > >> >> > > argument is > > >> so > > >> >> > > cliched and old that its collecting social security. If > > >> >> > > that's the best you can do why are you here? > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:360374 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
