The DICK Act-not a joke

[gilfo]

Does anybody know if this is a viable defense against the gun grabbers?
Dick Act of 1902 - Gun Control FORBIDDEN!


Were you aware of this law?
DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

 

[BigG]

I read a brief description of HR 11654. It's pretty much as the OP described. Glad to see we had other patriots preceding us.

 

[Spdracr39]

So why didn't this prevent them from sending our National Guard units to the middle east ? I don't think we were expecting an invasion.

 

[Zeeemu]

Readers may find this interesting.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp

 

[MtnCreek]

Can you provide a link? I'm thinking this is a load of some sort. I find it hard to believe that it or anyhting else could not be repealed.

Edit: Thanks Zeeemu.

 

[joeschmoe]

This one should be on Snopes. It has been spread around many times but just won't die, because people want it to be true. This email has just enough truth to seem plausable, but then makes absurd conclusions that are not true.

(ETA; Lol @ Zeemu. It is on snopes!)

 

[desidog]

deleted

 

[AlexanderA]

Typical Internet hokum. The Snopes article referenced above pretty well debunks it.

 

[Hapworth]

Hard reading.

 

[fanchisimo]

It might not be a joke but I still laugh every time I hear the Act's name.

 

[gym]

By the way "snopes" has been found to "lie" about many things that go against their political view, I read an article about this a few months ago, there are other "fact check" websites you may want to use instead.
They were caught lying several times, especially about gun related statements. I don't remember where the article was, but several people had told me not to trust them. You can Google it just to check, If I have a chance I will look for it.

 

[somerandomguy]

Haaaaa, best law name ever.

 

[Hapworth]

By the way "snopes" has been found to "lie" about many things that go against their political view, I read an article about this a few months ago, there are other "fact check" websites you may want to use instead.
They were caught lying several times, especially about gun related statements. I don't remember where the article was, but several people had told me not to trust them. You can Google it just to check, If I have a chance I will look for it.

Since you're going to pass it along as "fact", you should Google it and provide a credible link, as well as links to the putatively legitimate other fact check sites.

 

[SilentStalker]

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

So, if this is true then how do we have all of these laws that seem to limit our ability to have certain types of arms. It is clearly stated above that we are to have access to arms of any type and that we should be able to have as many as we can afford. If this was not supposed to be able to be repealed then how do we have the Miller vs. USSC decision in 1934? They ruled against his shotgun because it had never been used in or for a militia-like purpose. Ok, so tell me exactly how and when we were told it had to be used for milita like purposes? The militia can be anyone that feels the call to represent man and country, no? it doesn't say anywhere that the militia has to meet once a month, have certain firearms and not others, train with certain arms, etc. So, how exactly is the ruling in 1934 Constitutional? And how is it any subsequent rulings are Constitutional? It seems to me that the gov has patently overstepped their bounds here. Their so called rulings are in direct violation of the law of the land as far as I can tell. Maybe I am missing something here, but that is the way I see it.

How hard would it be to have these cases reheard or maybe brought up for discussion again in modern times? What would be needed to make something like this heard again? I used to think that once a ruling was made that was it and it could not be heard again, but clearly that is not the case.

****yes, I know it does not invalidate all US gun laws as some have proposed but it does clearly state we should have access to as many and all arms as we wish more or less, without restriction.

 

[happygeek]

IMHO you're misreading United States v. Miller.

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Basically Congress has the power to tax, and since the NFA is a tax it is Constitutional.
The shotgun crossed state lines, therefore falling under the Fed's jurisdiction because the Constitution explicitly gives them the power to regulate interstate commerce.
According to the government's own lawyers, the 2A only protects your right to own weapons used by the military.
Therefore a sawed off shotgun that crosses state lines and is not used by the military can be taxed and you can be punished for failing to pay that tax.

The problem is neither the defendent, his lawyer, or an expert witness showed up to inform the SCOTUS that the Army did indeed use short barrel shotguns like the 'Trench Gun'. As you'll notice from the government's own lawyer's argument, they actually respected the Constitution back then. Nowadays they just regulate anything and everything, but back then you'll notice they argued that the Feds had a say because the shotgun had crossed state lines, therefore it was used in interstate commerce. I believe US v. Miller also happened before the SCOTUS decided that the power to tax is the power to destroy. It was also before the SCOTUS decided that the Feds could tax you for doing absolutely nothing, as they did in the Obamacare case. I don't find US v. Miller nearly as scary as what they just decided.

 

[gym]

This is the number one page that google comes up with when asking if snopes is accurate or how accurate is snopes,
http://www.metroedit.com/2009/05/how-accurate-is-snopescom/
You can see if you choose to follow up, "Hapworth" that the majority of research leans in the "Biased camp" when it comes to the husband and wife who run the website, they are strong Obama supporters, and many things that they have said have been wrong. It's up to you to form your own opinion, as I have caught them several times in the past year, making untrue statements about various political issues that were pointed out to me by my friends and associates.
The Mikkelsons admit, however, that Snopes is only as reliable as the sources it cites, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.

“We don’t expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site’s name indicates that it contains reference pages,” states the Snopes FAQ page. “The research materials we’ve used in the preparation of any particular page are listed … so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/#rgiug3TAS6fuo72w.99
While Snopes and its critics may be at odds over the sources Snopes uses – and thus in disagreement over how reliable the site may be in every case – they do agree on one principle:

“I’ve got to tell you, you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet,” writes Farah. “You’ve got to use common sense and discernment in sorting out the good from the bad.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/#rgiug3TAS6fuo72w.99
Factcheck.org is a better alternative imo, also
List of common misconceptions
Fact checker
MythBusters
Newsbusters
PolitiFact.com
The Skeptic's Dictionary
The Straight Dope

 

[mgmorden]

Since you're going to pass it along as "fact", you should Google it and provide a credible link, as well as links to the putatively legitimate other fact check sites.

Generally what I've found is that "Snopes is biased and lies" generally translates into "Snopes once debunked something that I really wanted to be true.".

Some people are unable to differentiate a neutral position from a biased one (and I've found Snopes to be utterly neutral - whatever it means for either side of the political coin, they'll look for the truth). On some gun forums (not so much this one) I've seen some attack them as being "biased" for even having the nerve to fact check any story that sounded pro-gun.

I'm all for supporting our position, but I like to do so from a position of correctness. It looks bad on us all if we're caught in a lie (or just something innocently repeated out of ignorance).

 

[tkaction]

The issue here is "cannot be repealed" Any law can be amended or even repealed which is what appears to have happened here. There have been subsequent legislations which have addressed this act and allowed revisions which "appear" to have gutted it.

 

[Cosmoline]

Congress could pass a law one year saying there can be no gun control, then pass gun control the next year. To the extent there is a disagreement between the laws, the new gun control law trumps the old law saying there would be no gun control. If you want something to be impossible to overrule with legislation, you have to make it part of the Constitution.

vThe Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws

That's doesn't make any sense. Statutes are constantly being expressly and implicitly overridden by subsequent statutes. That the 101st Congress disagrees with the 100th Congress does not constitute a "bill of attainder" or an "ex post facto" law. It is in fact how our government operates. So assuming the DICK act had some rule prohibiting gun control (which nobody seems to be able to cite) then that rule was overridden by the NFA of 1934. Too bad, but that's what you get for electing FDR.

 

[psyopspec]

Generally what I've found is that "Snopes is biased and lies" generally translates into "Snopes once debunked something that I really wanted to be true.".

I can confirm this. Snopes once debunked something that I really wanted to be true. They are all bias and lies.

 

[Hapworth]

This is the number one page that google comes up with when asking if snopes is accurate or how accurate is snopes,
http://www.metroedit.com/2009/05/how-accurate-is-snopescom/

You can see if you choose to follow up, "Hapworth" that the majority of research leans in the "Biased camp" when it comes to the husband and wife who run the website, they are strong Obama supporters, and many things that they have said have been wrong. It's up to you to form your own opinion, as I have caught them several times in the past year, making untrue statements about various political issues that were pointed out to me by my friends and associates.
The Mikkelsons admit, however, that Snopes is only as reliable as the sources it cites, and they invite readers to look for the truth themselves.

“We don’t expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site’s name indicates that it contains reference pages,” states the Snopes FAQ page. “The research materials we’ve used in the preparation of any particular page are listed … so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/#rgiug3TAS6fuo72w.99
While Snopes and its critics may be at odds over the sources Snopes uses – and thus in disagreement over how reliable the site may be in every case – they do agree on one principle:

“I’ve got to tell you, you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet,” writes Farah. “You’ve got to use common sense and discernment in sorting out the good from the bad.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91196/#rgiug3TAS6fuo72w.99
Factcheck.org is a better alternative imo, also
List of common misconceptions
Fact checker
MythBusters
Newsbusters
PolitiFact.com
The Skeptic's Dictionary
The Straight Dope

Why is my handle in quotation marks? Are you implying the name doesn't exist?

Anyway...

Yeah, first hits aren't necessarily the best hits; in this case, they're definitely not. Now instead of vetting Snopes, you need to go back and vet Metroedit; enjoy trying to get anything solid on that slippery little squirmer -- usually a bad sign.

Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let's say the article you've given is good. It credits Wikipedia for getting to the bottom of the Snopes question, and directs the reader to Wikipedia's findings. Here, from those findings:

Snopes receives more complaints of liberal than conservative bias,[23] but insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.[23][24]

That's from FactCheck, who you list as a credible fact checking organization.

So, yeah, your research leads to Snopes getting a passing grade.

 

[Hapworth]

Generally what I've found is that "Snopes is biased and lies" generally translates into "Snopes once debunked something that I really wanted to be true.".

Some people are unable to differentiate a neutral position from a biased one (and I've found Snopes to be utterly neutral - whatever it means for either side of the political coin, they'll look for the truth). On some gun forums (not so much this one) I've seen some attack them as being "biased" for even having the nerve to fact check any story that sounded pro-gun.

I'm all for supporting our position, but I like to do so from a position of correctness. It looks bad on us all if we're caught in a lie (or just something innocently repeated out of ignorance).

This post has much win.

 

[gym]

Only because you asked for further clarification and sourses, so I tried to give you some. " "

 

[joeschmoe]

The OP is so absurd how can you not question it, but intead question the source that debunked it with a reasonably written peice that provided sources? (although I disagree with them on the "unorgainzed Militia" part, that's trivial).
Did the OP provide sources? Almost everything in the OP is obviouly bogus on every level. How can anyone believe this tripe for a second?

Seriouly, you think the OP is true? How about some clairification and research on the OP?

Did you hear that Obama signed a secret Executive Order that outlaws all gun owners? Round ups begin soon.