"Bills of atainders" "Post ex facto" On Jan 25, 2013 1:06 AM, "Eric Roberts" <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
> > #3 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:33 AM > To: 'cf-community@houseoffusion.com' > Subject: RE: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control > > The actual act... http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439?seq=1 > > > Please show me where this prevents gun control...or as Judah pointed > out...is non-repealable... > > -----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 CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection 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 The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of 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:360427 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
