The Dick Act of 1902 our lost friend?

9mm · January 12, 2013, 12:59 AM

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_d...p?q=1237163642

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

Does anyone know about this? I just found out about this.

Can we use this to fight those gun grabbers?

sigcurious · January 12, 2013, 01:15 AM

I doubt it, considering what you have quoted from the link is gibberish. Neither the concept of ex postfacto law or bills of attainder would likely apply in a repeal of a law, particularly of the purported nature of the Dick Act from the link. This is probably along the lines of the PPACA "preventing registration" a poor reading of legal text which is then taken out of context and twisted, so it can be posed as saying something else.

ETA: Quick fact check indicates the only truth in anything at that link is that the Dick Act pertained to the Militia/National Guard. In fact having the nearly opposite effect as the link would indicate. Giving the president the power to federalize the NGs.

vranasaurus · January 12, 2013, 04:05 PM

Any law can be repealed by congress. A prior act of congress can't invalidate subsequent acts. We call things that would do that "constitutional amendments."

A law is only ex post facto if it punishes conduct occuring prior to its enactment that was legal at the time. Laws may not retroactively punish conduct.A bill of attainder is an act that declares a person or group guilty of a crime and punishes them without trial.

The constitution gives congress the power to provide calling forth the militia. The act actually divides the militia into two categories, the national guard and the reserve militia.After scanning the text of the act I find nothing that permits members of the militia to possess whatever arms they like. Even if it did subsequent enactments by congress (NFA, GCA, etc.) would certainly curtail that.

The link you provided strikes me as tin foil hat propoganda. If the writer was so confident that he was right he should just make a machine gun and walk into an ATF office. He would have a few years in the pen to think about where he went wrong, but he would probably spend it coming up with more conspiracies.

The biggest impediment to any confiscation of firearms is the takings clause of the 5th amendment. The government may not take private property without compensation. The cost of any mass confiscation would be substantial. This doesn't protect us against prospective restrictions but it will likely prevent them from taking what we already have. Now we just need to work to ensure that no prospective regulations get passed.

dlb435 · January 13, 2013, 07:01 PM

Yes, I've known about this little known act. It was passed in response to several groups that formed up their own privete militias. We're talking KKK and other like minded groups. Today it would be the Aryan Brotherhood and other similar groups.
These folks were building their own private armies. Guns, canons, ammo and ammo dumps. In 1902 this law was passed to put them out of business and confiscate thier arms. The law was upheld by the supreme court and has never been revoked.
1902 was a pretty wild time in both the US and Europe. You had anarchist, communist, socialist, social Darwinist, the eugenics movement, the KKK and any number of other radical groups in play. Some European countries actually lost control of many areas of their counties to these groups. (Italy was the most notable) The lid blew off in 1914 with the advent of WW1.
Today we don't even consider private armies as legitimate, but it was an open question in 1902.

pnac · January 13, 2013, 07:55 PM

dlb435 said:

Quote:

Yes, I've known about this little known act. It was passed in response to several groups that formed up their own privete militias. We're talking KKK and other like minded groups. Today it would be the Aryan Brotherhood and other similar groups.
These folks were building their own private armies. Guns, canons, ammo and ammo dumps. In 1902 this law was passed to put them out of business and confiscate thier arms. The law was upheld by the supreme court and has never been revoked.
1902 was a pretty wild time in both the US and Europe. You had anarchist, communist, socialist, social Darwinist, the eugenics movement, the KKK and any number of other radical groups in play. Some European countries actually lost control of many areas of their counties to these groups. (Italy was the most notable) The lid blew off in 1914 with the advent of WW1.
Today we don't even consider private armies as legitimate, but it was an open question in 1902

Ahh, a student of history! Hats off to you sir! I submit that some of these groups are still very much with us. Different tactics, perhaps, but still there!

rduckwor · January 14, 2013, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Yes, I've known about this little known act. It was passed in response to several groups that formed up their own privete militias. We're talking KKK and other like minded groups. Today it would be the Aryan Brotherhood and other similar groups.
These folks were building their own private armies. Guns, canons, ammo and ammo dumps. In 1902 this law was passed to put them out of business and confiscate thier arms. The law was upheld by the supreme court and has never been revoked.
1902 was a pretty wild time in both the US and Europe. You had anarchist, communist, socialist, social Darwinist, the eugenics movement, the KKK and any number of other radical groups in play. Some European countries actually lost control of many areas of their counties to these groups. (Italy was the most notable) The lid blew off in 1914 with the advent of WW1.
Today we don't even consider private armies as legitimate, but it was an open question in 1902.

So, it was not repealed. What does it say about the individual right to bear arms? We know it outlawed private armies, but what of the individual rights?

January 12, 2013, 01:15 AM	#2
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	I doubt it, considering what you have quoted from the link is gibberish. Neither the concept of ex postfacto law or bills of attainder would likely apply in a repeal of a law, particularly of the purported nature of the Dick Act from the link. This is probably along the lines of the PPACA "preventing registration" a poor reading of legal text which is then taken out of context and twisted, so it can be posed as saying something else. ETA: Quick fact check indicates the only truth in anything at that link is that the Dick Act pertained to the Militia/National Guard. In fact having the nearly opposite effect as the link would indicate. Giving the president the power to federalize the NGs. Last edited by sigcurious; January 12, 2013 at 01:32 AM. Reason: grammar: reword for clarity

January 12, 2013, 04:05 PM	#3
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Any law can be repealed by congress. A prior act of congress can't invalidate subsequent acts. We call things that would do that "constitutional amendments." A law is only ex post facto if it punishes conduct occuring prior to its enactment that was legal at the time. Laws may not retroactively punish conduct.A bill of attainder is an act that declares a person or group guilty of a crime and punishes them without trial. The constitution gives congress the power to provide calling forth the militia. The act actually divides the militia into two categories, the national guard and the reserve militia.After scanning the text of the act I find nothing that permits members of the militia to possess whatever arms they like. Even if it did subsequent enactments by congress (NFA, GCA, etc.) would certainly curtail that. The link you provided strikes me as tin foil hat propoganda. If the writer was so confident that he was right he should just make a machine gun and walk into an ATF office. He would have a few years in the pen to think about where he went wrong, but he would probably spend it coming up with more conspiracies. The biggest impediment to any confiscation of firearms is the takings clause of the 5th amendment. The government may not take private property without compensation. The cost of any mass confiscation would be substantial. This doesn't protect us against prospective restrictions but it will likely prevent them from taking what we already have. Now we just need to work to ensure that no prospective regulations get passed.

January 13, 2013, 07:01 PM	#4
dlb435 Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2009 Posts: 654	Yes, I've known about this little known act. It was passed in response to several groups that formed up their own privete militias. We're talking KKK and other like minded groups. Today it would be the Aryan Brotherhood and other similar groups. These folks were building their own private armies. Guns, canons, ammo and ammo dumps. In 1902 this law was passed to put them out of business and confiscate thier arms. The law was upheld by the supreme court and has never been revoked. 1902 was a pretty wild time in both the US and Europe. You had anarchist, communist, socialist, social Darwinist, the eugenics movement, the KKK and any number of other radical groups in play. Some European countries actually lost control of many areas of their counties to these groups. (Italy was the most notable) The lid blew off in 1914 with the advent of WW1. Today we don't even consider private armies as legitimate, but it was an open question in 1902.