> >Subject: DICK ACT of 1902....not a joke....gun law
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CANT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump
> >>Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as
> >>Untouchable 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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of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 inl 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
> >>
> >>More Info With over 300 Million guns in the United States , the federal
> >>CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C.
> >>Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28
> >>U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending
> >>themselves against a tyrannical government. I read somewhere that just the
> >>State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia
> >>(would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's
> >>notice. Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?
> >>
> >>Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures
> >>like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> >>922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our
> >>current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the
> >>Constitution: "This [Supreme]
> Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
> Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1,
> at pg 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of
> Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
> The Reid Court ( U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
> >>
> >>"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or
> >>any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the
> >>Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares,
> >>"This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
> >>pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
> >>the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
> >>
> >>"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws
> >>enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the
> >>Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the
> >>drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
> >>
> >>"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the
> >>Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights
> >>let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to
> >>construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER
> >>an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions.
> >>(See: Elliots Debates 1836 ed. pgs 500-519).
> >>
> >>"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a
> >>manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
> >>designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot
> >>be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
> >>
> >>Did you understand what the
> Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive,
> Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by
> ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No
> question!
> >>
> >>At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions;
> >>Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time
> >>that, "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms
> >>unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument
> >>against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising
> >>from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would
> >>not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
> >>forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the
> >>character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the
> >>latter without its consent." Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in
> >>light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its
> >>host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government
> >>wish, without our acquiescing to it.
> >>
> >>The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
> >>"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress,
> >>which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the
> >>statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be
> >>completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the
> >>Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must
> >>conform to that instrument."* * The U.S. Supreme court could not have made
> >>it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY
> >>FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.
> >>
> >>http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=1902+dick+act*<http://searc
> >>h.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=1902+dick+act>*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CANT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump
> >>Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as
> >>Untouchable 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 inl 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
> >>
> >>More Info With over 300 Million guns in the United States , the federal
> >>CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C.
> >>Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28
> >>U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending
> >>themselves against a tyrannical government. I read somewhere that just the
> >>State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia
> >>(would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's
> >>notice. Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?
> >>
> >>Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures
> >>like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> >>922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our
> >>current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the
> >>Constitution: "This [Supreme]
> Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
> Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1,
> at pg 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of
> Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
> The Reid Court ( U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
> >>
> >>"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or
> >>any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the
> >>Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares,
> >>"This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
> >>pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
> >>the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
> >>
> >>"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws
> >>enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the
> >>Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the
> >>drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
> >>
> >>"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the
> >>Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights
> >>let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to
> >>construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER
> >>an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions.
> >>(See: Elliots Debates 1836 ed. pgs 500-519).
> >>
> >>"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a
> >>manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
> >>designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot
> >>be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
> >>
> >>Did you understand what the
> Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive,
> Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by
> ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No
> question!
> >>
> >>At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions;
> >>Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time
> >>that, "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms
> >>unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument
> >>against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising
> >>from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would
> >>not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
> >>forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the
> >>character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the
> >>latter without its consent." Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in
> >>light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its
> >>host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government
> >>wish, without our acquiescing to it.
> >>
> >>The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
> >>"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress,
> >>which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the
> >>statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be
> >>completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the
> >>Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must
> >>conform to that instrument."* * The U.S. Supreme court could not have made
> >>it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY
> >>FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.
> >>
> >>http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=1902+dick+act*<http://searc
> >>h.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=1902+dick+act>*