DICK ACT of 1902 ~ not a joke

This is a discussion on DICK ACT of 1902 ~ not a joke within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Though this was interesting. Does anybody know if this is a viable defense against the gun grabbers? Dick Act of 1902 - More properly known ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: DICK ACT of 1902 ~ not a joke

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array pipedream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,122

    DICK ACT of 1902 ~ not a joke

    Though this was interesting.

    Does anybody know if this is a viable defense against the gun grabbers?
    Dick Act of 1902 - More properly known as the “Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654″


    DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
    It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don't know this, their rights and the constitution. Don't prove them right.
    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. ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** 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    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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.
    NRA Patron Member
    GOA Life Member
    Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Did it ever get signed into law or did you just find something that was proposed in The House, went nowhere,
    the same as what happened with National Reciprocity last session? (Looked it up and
    apparently so.)

    This link may be helpful: http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah114.htm

    And I think if you read this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

    you will see what the real purpose, and uses of that act were.

    Another fable ready to be put to bed. http://www.volokh.com/tag/dick-act/
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Where did you get all of this information..specificcaly where it says it can't be repealed. As far as I know ex posto fact is when you are charged with a crime for something you did when it was at that time legal. I have know idea what the rest means.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Hopyard and mcp1810 like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array pipedream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,122
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Had not seen the link you posted but found there are a considerable number of web sites about this "Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654". None seem to give a original source of this so called law. Possibly the firearms act of 1934 makes it invalid but though posting it here would certainly stir some interest and opinions.
    NRA Patron Member
    GOA Life Member
    Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.

  7. #6
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    I just wish folks would do their own research and quit publishing rubbish. It does way more harm then good.

    Dick Act of 1902 « Publius-Huldah's Blog

    Chris

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array pipedream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,122
    How do we determine some so called blog is a reliable source anymore than any other internet source? There are dozens of web sites discussing this act with different opinions. Apparently some are against open discussion about this so called legislation and it's legitimacy.
    NRA Patron Member
    GOA Life Member
    Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by pipedream View Post
    How do we determine some so called blog is a reliable source anymore than any other internet source? There are dozens of web sites discussing this act with different opinions. Apparently some are against open discussion about this so called legislation and it's legitimacy.
    There are a few things that can be done.

    1. Snopes- not perfect but a good place to look to see if they have debunked it and why
    2. See who is posting what. If it is fringe sites and conspsiracy sites then you have to take that with a grain of sale (think Alex Jones)
    3. Common sense...legislation that is passed by congrees that can't be repealed?
    4. Critical thiking means to look at something with an unbiased perspective. If something looks too good to be true and fits an individuals world view then chances are it is not entirely true...if true at all
    5. Look at sources that refute a claim. See who the authors or contributers are. Look at what they write.
    6. And again...common sense.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array pipedream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,122
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    There are a few things that can be done.

    1. Snopes- not perfect but a good place to look to see if they have debunked it and why
    2. See who is posting what. If it is fringe sites and conspsiracy sites then you have to take that with a grain of sale (think Alex Jones)
    3. Common sense...legislation that is passed by congrees that can't be repealed?
    4. Critical thiking means to look at something with an unbiased perspective. If something looks too good to be true and fits an individuals world view then chances are it is not entirely true...if true at all
    5. Look at sources that refute a claim. See who the authors or contributers are. Look at what they write.
    6. And again...common sense.
    Thank you for the polite response. I have found Snopes to not be that reliable especially when it comes to political issues. The owners tend to lean a bit left on political things. Your other suggestions are good and I had looked for original sources but not found any. There has been some discussion about this topic on other forums with a lot of different opinions so I though I would post here with the comment "Though this was interesting".
    Hoping to get some good feed back and I guess I did feed back. Thanks...........
    NRA Patron Member
    GOA Life Member
    Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Did it ever get signed into law or did you just find something that was proposed in The House, went nowhere,
    the same as what happened with National Reciprocity last session? (Looked it up and
    apparently so.)

    This link may be helpful: Publius Huldah -- Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws

    And I think if you read this link Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    you will see what the real purpose, and uses of that act were.

    Another fable ready to be put to bed. The Volokh Conspiracy » Dick Act

    Yes the bill of attainder and ex-post facto sections of the email are bogus, but it appears that it did in fact become law.

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by phreddy View Post
    Yes the bill of attainder and ex-post facto sections of the email are bogus, but it appears that it did in fact become law.
    Yes as I did note, the bill became law. However, even ignoring the bill of attainder and ex post facto nonsense,
    the law really had nothing at all to do with what the OP suggested it did. It is the basis
    for the National Guard and Federal Funding of the Guard, and not a law that prohibits gun control.

    Suntzu is about correct when he suggests various ways of validating information.

    Does it make sense. Words like "secret" "little know" "obscure" are often a tip off that
    something actually not secret, but well know and not obscure is being misrepresented.

    Who wrote the thing? A blogger? A paid journalist with a major new organization? A
    recognized scholar?

    There are plenty of other things that might be mentioned, but if it seems unbelievable, it probably
    is not to be believed.

    As to who makes some of this stuff up, I've no idea, but I do think there are people on
    the payrolls of various organizations who support agendas through propaganda; and one of the
    best propaganda tool is "the big lie." I admire Suntzu's "just the facts" approach to many
    things we discuss on here.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array BenGoodLuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,801
    Ben

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum. I think, therefore I am armed. (Don Mann, The Modern Day Gunslinger; the ultimate handgun training manual)


  14. #13
    Senior Member Array nontechguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    In The Middle
    Posts
    832
    When I typed in "Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902" into Duckduckgo for a quick look, it came up with quite a few links, unfortunately they all went to various blogs and other websites. None went to the actual bill. If anyone can find the actual bill as passed, it would tell us a lot more than we have now. I'm wondering if Thomas would have it.
    "The time is now near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves."
    ------------------------------------— George Washington 1776
    Gun free zones
    are safe havens-
    FOR CRIMINALS

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    So it was a joke?
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    The Second Amendment was originally written to prohibit the federal government from making laws pertaining to the keeping and bearing of arms. This is why its wording is so explicit -- regulation was reserved for the states.

    The 14th Amendment was intentionally written to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Therefore states may no longer regulate the keeping and bearing of arms. The Dick Act is irrelevant. I struggle to think of a gun law that is constitutionally valid after the passing of the 14th Amendment.

    Now we have people who do not understand what 'infringement' might mean. 'Reasonable restriction' is thrown around. 'Time, place and manner...' It's all very confusing unless you consider the context of the original amendment. It was written to deny congress the ability to regulate our RKBA in any manner whatsoever. Application to the states does not somehow create a grey area that needs interpretation. It simply makes gun control unconstitutional at any level of government.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

efficiency of militia bill h.r. 11654 snopes

,
efficiency of militia bill h.r. 11654, of june 28, 1902 i
,

h.r. 11654 pdf

,
h.r. 11654 snopes
,

hr 11654 snopes

,
richard act 1902
,
the efficiency of militia bill h.r. 11654 of june 28, 1902
,
thomas, h.r. 11654, 1902
Click on a term to search for related topics.