SilentStalker
Member
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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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 If this was not supposed to be able to be repealed then how do we have the Miller vs. USSC decision in 1934?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.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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.
