Once again, Tim, you ought to know the difference between legislation and constitution. A law may provide guidance to the interpretation of a constitutional right that the judiciary may defer to. However, every single one of those laws can be changed through legislative action.
The notion that a current legislature may not bind a future legislature is one of the most fundamental notions in Common Law. And I think you know that, even if you don't like it in this case. Now, if you want to argue that laws A and B are unconstitutional, that's another matter. But saying that a future legislature is unable to change law A or B? That's just nuts. Judah On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ex post facto - in other words you would have to grandfather everyone. > > As to blocking gun control, the part where it defines the unorganized > militia as everyone, because of that everyone has the right. > On Jan 25, 2013 2:18 AM, "Eric Roberts" <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> > wrote: > > > > > Ex Post Facto...which means that you cannot charge someone after the fact > > with something that was not illegal at the time...what does that have to > do > > with anything? How does a bill of attainder relate to this? And where > > does > > it state that gun control is not possible... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:33 AM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: FW: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control > > > > > > "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:360446 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
