listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

The Dick Act of 1902

The United States Militia – by NY John

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902. Congressional Record, House, pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as the Dick Act of 1902, written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

“Be it enacted that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen, respective of States, Territories, and the District of Columbia and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age, shall be divided into three classes; the organized militia, to be known as The National Guard of the State, Territory or District of Columbia, or by such other designations by the laws of the respective States or Territories, as may be given by the laws of the respective States or Territories, the national voluntary reserve as provided in this act, and the remainder to be known as the reserve militia.”

The Militia Act and the revised Militia Act (the Dick Act), make it quite clear that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 are the (unorganized) militia with an absolute right to keep and bear Arms under the Article II of the Bill of Rights, of whatever type; automatic or semi-automatic, regardless of size, magazine capacity, barrel length or caliber/gauge in any quantity they may deem necessary along with any amount of ammunition they may determine from time to time.

“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report”, of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee; Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, February 1982. Orrin Hatch, Chairman.

“That the National Guard is not the “Militia” referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to “raise and support armies”, and not its power to “Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.” This Congress chose to do so in the interest of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over Constitutional militia, which can be called forth only “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions.” The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the Constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by Title 10 United States Code 311 (a).”

“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commenter and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an individual rights interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms previously discussed…It accurately reflects the majority of proposals that lead up to the Bill of Rights itself.

NOW, THEREFORE, all existing or future so-called “gun and/or ammunition laws”, of whatever name or form under “color of law”, whether Federal, Federal Agency, Pseudo Federal Agency, State, County or Municipal that infringes, abridges or restricts in any manner, the God given, unalienable, indefeasible, Constitutional right of Citizens to keep and bear Arms peaceably, openly or concealed, for their defense of life, liberty, and property are prima facie violations of Article 1, Sec. 9, Part 3; Article 6, Part 2; and Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X of the Constitution for the United States of America; Article 2; Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. 4, Sec. 5, Sec. 27, and Sec. 29 of the Constitution for the State of Arkansas; and the Dick Act of 1902, and are NO LAW, ab initio, ultra vires, of no force and effect, incumbent upon no one to obey or any court to enforce.

https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
3784
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

9 Responses to The Dick Act of 1902

  1. Strayhorse says:

    So why are our duly elected Constitutional representatives violating their oath of office in violating the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

  2. Strayhorse says:

    So why are our duly elected Constitutional representatives violating their oath of office in violating the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

  3. Edwin Vieira, Jr. says:

    The “Dick Act:” was passed in 1903, not 1902, and has been amended subsequently. The notion that it cannot be repealed is an absurdity. The National Guard is not any form of “militia”, but consists of the “Troops, or Ships of War” which the States may keep in time of peace with the consent of Congress, under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Constitutionally, there is no such thing as an “unorganized militia”, or as “the Militia of the United States” (the Constitution recognizing only “the Militia of the several States”). True enough, the Second Amendment cannot be violated; and most “gun control” statutes are unconstitutional. But this has nothing to do with the “Dick Act”. Indeed, the “Dick Act” was an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

    • Henry Shivley says:

      Organized, unorganized, upside down, and/or backwards, we the people are the militia. We are born into it, as it is a part of our 2nd Amendment right to defend and protect ourselves.
      Besides our Bill of Rights, we have only a subservient government with zero authority to define and/or regulate our rights. Our status as militia is what we dictate it to be as individuals, as that right, like every other right in the Bill of Rights, is of, by, and for THE INDIVIDUAL!

  4. Richard says:

    Strayhorse: because they can and will and are getting away with it. Our elected officials do not give a rats ass about “We the People” unless it is election time, then they will kiss our ass to get reelected.

  5. oldvet says:

    The Constitution should have stopped the Bankers Wars,…it should have stopped the Fed from forming…it should have stopped “Entangling Affairs” with foreign Nations. it didn’t and it won’t

    A Dictatorial Govt. cares not for “words” on paper. They produce and provide their own “interpreters” of the law and then pen new “laws” according to their wants…..

    “Govt. is not Eloquent…it is a force and a tyrant”

  6. Miguel Grande says:

    The Dick Act did not attempt to circumvent to 2nd amendment but to define it once and for all. It can not be altered or repealed, it is and will always be the law of the land.

    • Henry Shivley says:

      “The Dick Act will always be the law of the land.”
      Is that like the 2nd Amendment will always be the law of the land?
      THIS GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DEFINE OUR RIGHTS. IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO THROUGH ANY LEGISLATIVE ACT.
      The 2nd Article to our Bill of Rights is absolute law. We do not need to enforce the Dick Act, but rather the 2nd Article, as it is written, and free of infringements.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 15 + 10 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)