Dick Act mythmaking
I've rec'd 3-4 copies already of an email claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 ... well, let me post it:
"DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government This criminal Cabal is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don't know this,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."
No, the Dick Act repealed the Militia Act of 1792, and created the National Guard system. It says nothing about gun control. And it was extensively re-written in a couple of post-WWI Army Acts.
"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."
I believe 10 USC 311 survives (and is almost the only section that has survived) from the original Act. That breaks the militia into two classes, organized (Guard) and unorganized. Why would the regular army have been part of the militia?
"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."
No authority cited for this, I notice. In any event, such a right would vanish once a person hits 45.
"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
There is no such thing as a statute that cannot be repealed. The bill of attainder clause prevents Congress from convicting people without a trial. The ex post facto ban prevents punishment, or increased punishment, of actions taken before the law in question was passed. As noted above, most of the Dick Act was rewritten by the Army Acts (I think of 1916 and 1920), so it HAS been repealed.
"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 only purposes for which the General Government the can call upon the National Guard."
Those are the only purposes for which the government can call out the militia. They got around this in the post WWI Army Acts by organizing the Guard as part of the reserve forces of the regular army, etc., and by requiring dual enlistment: any Guardsman also takes an oath to the U.S..
A bit of history: in 1912 the Attorney General indeed ruled that the militia could not be used outside the US. Then came WWI. The government dealt with that ruling by simply drafting National Guardsmen en masse. The Guard didn't care for this: its units were broken up, officers became enlisted men, etc.. So after the War, they were supporters of the system of dual enlistment, so that their units could be called up as units.
[Update: if your comment is blocked, try omitting your email. I had to block gmail, yahoo and some others due to unbelievable waves of spam comments linking to them, but set it so you can comment while giving no email address at all].
Gov. Perdue signed NCGS127A into law. In part, it states:
§ 127A‑7. Composition of unorganized militia.The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able‑bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able‑bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.
Posted by: counsel dew at January 25, 2013 10:53 PM
If I recall, a bill of attainder is a law which singles out individuals as having broken the law. They would still get a trial, but the trial would simply confirm that the person is the one named in the law. It's a gotcha law that the Brits used and the colonies despised.
Posted by: Skyler at January 26, 2013 10:14 AM
It still surprises me as to the number of people who believe false history. First, the 1903 has not been repealed as you suggested by the 1916 National defense Act or legislation in 1920. The Federal definition of militia as being of two types, organized and unorganized- is still active. The 1916 Act, section 79, invoked this description in the creation of reserve battalions from which men would be drawn to replace regular Army troops lost in combat. Section 79 requires the National Guard to be federalized as a first step. As for where these men come from, Section 79 states they come from the unorganized militia as defined by Act in 1903. It was section 79 that was repealed in 1920 as part of the effort at shutting down selective service following World War 1.
Posted by: James N. Gibson at January 26, 2013 01:13 PM
Also, there is a third militia allowed under Federal Law: State Defense Forces. Created after WW1, it allows States to maintain a cadre strength militia separate from the NG. If war is declared this cadre force can then be easily expanded into a true militia allowing the State's NG units to be federalized. The size of the expanded force is not officially limited, but the Federal government has only promised to supply enough arms an equipment for a force one half the size of the regular NG force of the State. Of course the arms and uniforms have to be distinctly different to those of the active Army: if nothing meeting that criteria exist in Federal store nothing will be provided. In the Korean War the California SDF armed themselves, and during WW2 the Federal government sent the State Guard Shotguns (Biden Approved)
Posted by: James Gibson at January 26, 2013 01:33 PM
*Perpich v. DOD* goes into much detail on this subject of the Dick Act:
Posted by: CDR D at January 26, 2013 05:54 PM
I have to laugh, please excuse...
But this post begins with "Dick Act.."
And the one preceding begins with "Holder Prepares.."
Posted by: CDR D at January 27, 2013 05:59 PM
"Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The US Constitution
something resembling a fringe : edge, periphery
Synonyms: borderline, bound, boundary, brim, circumference, compass, confines, edge, edging, end, frame, border, hem, margin, perimeter, periphery, rim, skirt, skirting, verge
Transitive verb: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
Intransitive verb: encroach — used with on or upon
synonyms see trespass
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
Synonym discussion: trespass encroach infringe invade mean to make inroads upon the property, territory, or rights of another. trespass implies an unwarranted or unlawful intrusion . encroach suggests gradual or stealthy entrance upon another's territory or usurpation of another's rights or possessions . infringe implies an encroachment clearly violating a right or prerogative . invade implies a hostile and injurious entry into the territory or sphere of another .
From Webster's Dictionary
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
From the U. S. Constitution.
The writers of the Constitution chose their words carefully. Any law which in any way hinders the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is illegal. ALL gun control laws are illegal. A law creating multitple definitions and divisions of "milita" does not override the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: Mike Gardner at January 27, 2013 09:57 PM
Just follow our 2nd Amendment as required by law
Posted by: George Ramos at January 27, 2013 10:05 PM
"suppress insurrection" - one man's insurrection is another's.....
I thing those two words worry some people - rightfully or not.
Posted by: DrVino at January 27, 2013 11:23 PM
My question is how do can a militia be "well regulated" as our 2nd amendment states, but not infringe upon our rights (however those rights are interpreted) and who regulates it?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2013 12:38 PM
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Posted by: tom at February 3, 2013 05:46 AM
My understanding of a bill of attainder is the situation when the government convicts someone, that particular someone's property, the person of his heirs and the property of the heirs could be forfeit. Kinda like the RICO statutes. There are so many losses to our personal freedoms that I just cannot understand why those who claim to liberals push this stuff (gun control, creation of hate crimes, the loss of freedom from being tried again and again once having been acquitted, the use of imminent domain to seize property for non-government use, the RICO statutes created so that alleged racketeers didn't have the money to pay for their defense, and on and on). Remember, our founders were the best examples of liberals their era boasted.
Posted by: tom carney at February 4, 2013 02:55 PM