DICK ACT of 1902

Cannot Be Repealed..GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN !

we can only save ourselves by disobeying any and all unconstitutional laws and treaties signed.

We the people are now responsible for defending and upholding the Constitution as our Government and foreign entities ( UN ) are out to destroy it.
Lock N Load gun owners and prepare for War is the current language on the web. 

listed several sources and printed two articles in case the links “disappear”. Don’t know if this ads to our “ammo” or
 Not. Can’t hurt. Please file away and push out to your email lists! ~victoria
 http://patrioticandproud.biz/blog/2011/07/19/the-dick-act-of-1902/
 http://www.care2.com/news/member/101930885/527449
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/93223004/DICK-ACT-1902-PART-3-OF-3-HR-11655
 http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/82716-anyone-ever-heard...
 https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854
 DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
 Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.
 
Description: second amendment2
 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 The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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.
 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
 Source: http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node%2F3949
 Description: https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDMOP2VhGC3e2Cy...
 DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Govern
 http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node%2F3949
 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.
 
Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902. Congressional Record, House, pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as the Dick Act of 1902, written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.
 
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
 
"Be it enacted that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen, respective of States, Territories, and the District of Columbia and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age, shall be divided into three classes; the organized militia, to be known as The National Guard of the State, Territory or District of Columbia, or by such other designations by the laws of the respective States or Territories, as may be given by the laws of the respective States or Territories, the national voluntary reserve as provided in this act, and the remainder to be known as the reserve militia."
 
The Militia Act and the revised Militia Act (the Dick Act), make it quite clear that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 are the (unorganized) militia with an absolute right to keep and bear Arms under the Article II of the Bill of Rights, of whatever type; automatic or semi-automatic, regardless of size, magazine capacity, barrel length or caliber/gauge in any quantity they may deem necessary along with any amount of ammunition they may determine from time to time.
 
"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report", of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee; Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, February 1982. Orrin Hatch, Chairman.
 "That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies", and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." This Congress chose to do so in the interest of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over Constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the Constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by Title 10 United States Code 311 (a)."
 
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commenter and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
 
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an individual rights interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms previously discussed...It accurately reflects the majority of proposals that lead up to the Bill of Rights itself.
 
NOW, THEREFORE, all existing or future so-called "gun and/or ammunition laws", of whatever name or form under "color of law", whether Federal, Federal Agency, Pseudo Federal Agency, State, County or Municipal that infringes, abridges or restricts in any manner, the God given, unalienable, indefeasible, Constitutional right of Citizens to keep and bear Arms peaceably, openly or concealed, for their defense of life, liberty, and property are prima facie violations of Article 1, Sec. 9, Part 3; Article 6, Part 2; and Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X of the Constitution for the United States of America; Article 2; Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. 4, Sec. 5, Sec. 27, and Sec. 29 of the Constitution for the State of Arkansas; and the Dick Act of 1902, and are NO LAW, ab initio, ultra vires, of no force and effect, incumbent upon no one to obey or any court to enforce.
 __________________
 https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854 SOURCE
 
Victoria Baer
 Description: Description: LogoBAEREDGE
 4320 Deerwood Lake Pkwy #101-222
 Jacksonville, FL 32216
 904.982.1734 PH
 904.996.1510 FAX
 Victoria@baeredge.net
 www.BaerEdge.net

UN SMALL ARMS TREATY
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-27/revised-draft-raises-hopes-for-arms-trade-treaty
Revised draft raises hopes for arms trade treaty
By Edith M. Lederer on July 27, 2012

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A revised draft of a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade raised hopes from supporters and the British government, which has been the leading proponent, that an historic agreement could be reached by Friday's deadline for action.

The draft circulated late Thursday closed several loopholes in the original text, though the Washington-based Arms Control Association said further improvements are still needed to strengthen measures against illicit arms transfers.
...
Opponents in the U.S., especially the powerful National Rifle Association, have portrayed the treaty as a surrender of gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The issue of gun control, always politically explosive one for American politicians, has re-emerged since last week's shooting at a Colorado cinema killed 12 people

In Washington, a bipartisan group of 51 senators on Thursday threatened to oppose the treaty if it falls short in protecting Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. In a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable.

Supporters  [and  Lying bastards] of the treaty say it will not affect law-abiding individual gun owners  , but would close loopholes that allow arms dealers to evade the strict laws that already exist in countries and transfer guns through weaker states.
...

The new draft makes clear that doesn't pertain only to arms exports but to all types of arms transfers, closing a loophole raised by campaigners.

The United States objected to any requirement to report on exports of ammunition and that remains out of the latest draft.

51 lying bastards say they will oppose the NWO treaty that they support... Understand the Senate is Demo controlled, gee, does the Potus have any blackmail going on these guys? No that would be wrong  Does this "joker" want to be re-selected? Maybe not 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-senators-threaten-to-block-un-weapons-treaty-over-right-to-bear-arms/article4443407/
U.S. senators threaten to block UN weapons treaty over right to bear arms
Jul. 26 2012, 7:09 PM

A bipartisan group of 51 senators on Thursday threatened to oppose a global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.
...
The senators said as the negotiations continue, “we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure – if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference – that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defence.
“As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard,” they wrote.

The lawmakers insisted that the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities.

They also raised concerns that the draft defines international arms transfers as including transport across national territory while requiring the monitor and control of arms in transit.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, opposes the treaty, saying its members will never surrender the right to bear arms to the United Nations.
...
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, told The Associated Press earlier this week that the United States wants export controls to prevent illicit transfers of arms and has been making clear its “red lines, including that we will not accept any treaty that infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.” The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/10064-un-small-arms-treaty-barack-obamas-backdoor-gun-control-may-pass/
UN Small Arms Treaty: Barack Obama’s Backdoor Gun Control May Pass
 Kevin Danielsen July 10, 2012


...
While it is difficult to sift through the various UN treaties, the ‘small arms treaty’ is a part of a much larger initiative to curtail individual gun rights.  In essence, the ‘small arms treaty’, the ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty, and the ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ can be bundled into one giant effort to remove US sovereignty, giving the UN control over the liberties of US citizens, nullifying protections Americans have enjoyed since the birth of the US.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already vowed to sign such a treaty.  In fact, both have largely been working behind closed doors, as they know full-well that Americans would surely show staunch resistance if their agenda committed to ‘open war’.

Douglas J. Hagmann of the HomelandSecurityUS.com reports:

Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty,the antagonism to the right to bear arms in the U.S. by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and our elected officials cannot be disputed. While seeming to loathe the Second Amendment, the majority of their efforts to enforce gun control appear to be “under the radar” to avoid raising the ire of the advocates of the right to bear arms.”

What does this mean for Americans?  All of these ‘treaties’ have a common thread, which boil down to 4 directives.  Katie Pavlich, the Editor of TownHall.com, reports:


-Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

-Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

-Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the anti-gun media never seem to grasp).

-Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.”

According to various White House insiders, Barack Hussein Obama has not been idle, saying, “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” he continues …“We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”  Perhaps, this is why the President has been curiously silent on the subject, as he does not want to attract attention to what he is truly doing through the various UN treaties.

Either way, this spells bad news for American gun rights.  Anthony Martin of the Examiner.com stated:


As the United Nations prepares its final push to ratify a controversial gun treaty, the U.S. Senate is set to approve the measure which critics say will not only give away U.S. sovereignty but directly attack the individual gun rights of American citizens, according to a report published Thursday at Stand Up America.

Democrats still hold the majority in the Senate.”

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=234520.0

The Text of the treaty includes the following language:

"Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional armsexclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;"

This means the UN Treaty does NOT recognize the Second Amendment, and ONLY ("exclusively") for 'sporting, recreational, cultural, historical' purposes. A nation that signs on to the Treaty is thus BOUND BY TREATY TO ADHERE TO THAT, ie, recognizing private ownership of arms EXCLUSIVELY for 'sporting, recreational, cultural, historical' purposes.

"Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items."

This will effectively eliminate the importation into the US of gun parts kits, foreign replacement parts, etc. If you do not understand the logistical implications of this, then you do not understand either the global arms business AT ALL or you do not understand the 'end game' of this treaty, which is to slowly suffocate and dry up any private ownership of MILITARY-TYPE WEAPONRY.

"Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control listthat shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law."

Here's the Big One - this demands the US establish a NATIONAL REGISTRY of 'small arms' - which will include AT LEAST all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and possibly could be taken to mean ANY rifle, ANY handgun, ANY shotgun. In other words, converting ALL semi-auto's to NFA regulated weapons. Which by the way has been mentioned before by some pro-disarmament politicians and organisations.

Then there's this:

"At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty. ... A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession."

So there's the back-door for 'future amendments' which could include ANYTHING. THAT is where the REAL danger lies (that and the 'national control list' described above). A future Amendment prohibiting private ownership of magazines having a capacity of more than 10 rounds, for example, could be passed WITHOUT ANY FANFARE, NO SENATE HEARINGS, NO SENATE VOTE, etc. Also, here's how the Amendments would be adopted: "Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties."

Amendments can and probably would be forced upon the US by a 2/3rds vote. Think 2/3rds of the UN Membership list is pro-Second Amendment? Hardly.

This Treaty includes CLEAR VIOLATIONS of the Second Amendment, and subverts the Constitutional authority of Congress as well by taking LEGISLATIVE POWERS AWAY from congress and placing them in the hands of a foreign power governing by 'consensus OR 2/3rds vote', which votes are cast entirely by UNELECTED people (unelected by American citizens). Not to mention the budgetary issues, which essentially reduce down to taxation without representation.

The main threats, then, are a disruption of parts and rifle imports to the US, disruption of foreign ammunition (which is just about the only affordable ammunition available in quantity to Americans), establishing a national registry of arms, and the open ended 'future amendments' possibilities.

To suggest this Treaty has no impact on American civilians is naive and ill-informed AT BEST.

Oh, and screw the NRA, they are America's oldest gun control organisation in existence.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/
UN fails to reach deal on global arms trade treaty, as US asks for more time
Published July 27, 2012


UNITED NATIONS –  U.N. member states have failed to reach agreement on a new treaty to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade.
 
Some diplomats and treaty supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the month-long negotiating conference.
 
Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some key loopholes by Friday's deadline for action. 

But the United States announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty -- and Russia and China then also asked for more time. 

A bipartisan group of 51 U.S. senators on Thursday had threatened to oppose the global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting the constitutional right to bear arms

...

 Despite the failure to reach agreement, Moritan predicted that "we certainly are going to have a treaty in 2012."
 
  He said there are several options for moving forward in the General Assembly which will be considered over the summer, before the world body's new session begins in September.
 
  Britain has taken the lead in pushing for a treaty to reduce the impact of the illicit arms trade.
 
  Ahead of Friday's meeting, Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg discussed treaty prospects with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in London and told reporters and both urged the treaty's adoption.
 
  "Global rules govern the sale of everything from bananas to endangered species to weapons of mass destruction, but not guns or grenades," Clegg said. "This anomaly causes untold suffering in conflicts around the world. 1,000 people are killed daily by small arms wielded by terrorists, insurgents and criminal gangs."
 
  The secretary-general said he was disappointed at the failure to agree on a treaty, calling it "a setback."But he said he was encouraged that states have agreed to continue pursuing a treaty and pledged his "robust" support.
 
  At the end of the negotiating session, Mexico read a joint statement from more than 90 countries saying they "are determined to secure an Arms Trade Treaty as soon as possible."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/#ixzz22VBoWCLp

Meanwhile in Washington...

U.S. homeland-security and law-enforcement agencies have objected to Obama administration proposals to relax export restrictions on high-powered firearms, threatening a centerpiece of the president’s trade…agenda.

The agencies, in internal memos viewed by The Wall Street Journal, warn the changes could help arm drug cartels and terrorists and make it harder for the U.S. to crack down on gun-trafficking.
...
Under the proposed rules, close-assault weapons, sniper rifles, combat shotguns and ammunition would be moved from the “strict controls” of the Munitions List to a “lesser controlled” Commerce list, according to a Homeland Security memo.
...
Homeland Security warned in its memo that many eligible countries in Europe have “considerable government corruption, significant underground economies and no border controls for exports allowing these countries to serve as transshipment points for diversion of small arms and light weapons.” No [specific] country was named

Full Article: http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/white-house-efforts-to-relax-gun-exports-face-resistance/

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/dc3389.doc.htm

7 September 2012
...
Representatives of Israel and the United States said they wished to disassociate themselves from preambular paragraph 11 of the Programme of Action, relating to the right to self-determination of people under foreign occupation.