Dick Act of 1902… Can't Be Repealed (Gun Control Forbidden) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

August 4th, 2009

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on RedditShare on Google+Email this to someone

10 Responses to “Dick Act of 1902… Can't Be Repealed (Gun Control Forbidden) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government”

  1. tetrapyloctomist Says:

    Good one sakerfa – pity there isn’t a more ‘fluid’ way to communicate on your site yet (you’ve probly noticed I don’t do email… ;-)

    (No need to post this :)

    Peace through knowledge,


  2. sakerfa Says:

    wait, can you explain? What’s wrong with the commenting system?

    Also, we have Internet Relay Chat setup over DPTV(USTREAM)

  3. de obvious Says:

    Good info! But will it do us any good at this point since it appears that Congress is compromised?

  4. dave Says:

    Of course it will do us some good! It’s a proverbial line drawn in the sand. Our Constitution is not going to be handed back to us with an apology for the inconvenience that it’s gonna take to restore it. But what is already written will serve as ample justification for adequate restoration of that glorious document.
    And if the time has come in America whereby a person cannot express there opinion about how he/she feels about the course our government is on, then you don’t live in the land of the free or the home of the brave. As far as I am concerned the fat lady ain’t even got on stage yet!, and i’m bettin’ she never gets there.

  5. robertsgt40 Says:

    After a few generations of state run education, it should be no wonder that the products of these institutions have no idea what is in the Constitution. Dumbed down to the lowest common denominator with ambient IQs, it’s a small wonder we still exist as a nation. Only when the populace gets good and hungry will there be change. The longer we wait, the more painful will be the recovery.

  6. Rady Says:

    Nice post; I’ve linked it at The COTO Report (see right column heading Second Amendment).

  7. tetrapyloctomist Says:

    “sakerfa said
    August 4, 2009 at 11:00 am

    wait, can you explain? What’s wrong with the commenting system?

    Also, we have Internet Relay Chat setup over DPTV(USTREAM)”

    The commenting system is fine but there’s no continuity as articles ‘fall off’ the bottom of the home page quite rapidly – it was the key to nullifying the power of Indymedia – the memory hole effect. That’s where the forum approach comes in handy, but a great deal more work for the owner unless he/she allows an anonymous free-for-all that eventually requires Mosbauer techiques to distinguish signal from noise.

    As for IRC, ditto – too scattered, no focus, no threading, no record, very difficult to convey solid information in any cohesive manner.

    Also for those who rely on cybercafes for their access, there’s absolutely no way there’s going to be any continuity except with a forum, imo.

    None of this is meant by way of criticism as your site is otherwise excellent.

  8. tetrapyloctomist Says:

    Ooops – missed your side panel ‘Most viewed today’ which at least flags old article comments – sorry, what comes of speed reading against the clock! [;-)

    Meanwhile back out on the street, I’m handing out more Ubuntu install discs than DVDs right now – good sign – first get out from under the stress of the NWO’s favorite OS-for-the-ignorant-masses, then work for their downfall…

  9. sakerfa Says:

    Thanks. I’ll look into getting us a forum. We almost merged with ‘War Without End’ forum, but the guy cancelled on me..

    Keep sending the critiques bro,

  10. Charles Labianco Says:


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.