From what I've found, it is real. It's also know as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654.
Honestly, it's the first time I've ever heard of it. Anyone of you with more knowledge and understanding of this stuff is more than welcome to give you impression of it as to whether or not there's any validity to it as to it supposedly making all gun control laws illegal or not?
And sorry, but it appears only right wing websites have anything to say about it. I can understand why that is though. Most liberal websites won't post anything progun for one, and for two, if there indeed is some validity to this particular Act/Bill, like any liberal website would ever let us know that. lol
But seriously, from what I've read, it sounds promising. But I'm not finding much on it. All the places that have anything on it, well those that came up when I searched it that is, all seem to say about the same thing.
So, ....
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
The good news is that the Bill does exist and was definitely signed into law. However, the primary purpose seems to have been to integrate the various National Guard formations into a structure that enabled them to work smoothly with the regular Army when called up by the President for service. This seems to have involved reorganizing the units to conform with standard US Army practices and regularizing unit designations to conform with US Army usage.
It was the subject of debate in Congress at the time of World War I because when President Wilson called up the National Guard for overseas service in 1917, a Representative named William Gordon said that Wilson should have been impeached for so doing. The Dick Act of 1902 provides for the call-up of the National Guard for enforcing the laws of the Union, suppressing insurrection and repelling invasion. There's nothing in there about fighting a war overseas.
No one seems to have made a point of this provision of the Dick Act during World War II; but I believe a number of draft-eligible men enlisted in the National Guard during Vietnam for exactly this reason, that the National Guard could not be compelled to serve overseas. Neither Nixon nor Johnson wanted or dared to push this to a decision that could easily have ended up in front of the Supreme Court and gone against them. The possible relevance of the Dick Act may be inferred from the fact that during the entire Vietnam War, only one National Guard unit ever deployed to Vietnam (I think it was a reserve Special Forces battalion from the Midwest), and that for just one tour.
And yes, the Efficiency of Militia Bill of 1902 does address the topic of "the unorganized milita," meaning every able-bodied adult male not serving in the Army or the National Guard between the ages of 18 and 45. But so far I have not found a copy of the bill online that I can read to see exactly what it says about their possession of weapons, which is the point that right-wing website link kept harping on. I note that while Wikipedia does have a well written article on the Dick Act, its focus is entirely on the National Guard and its evolution from the various organized state militia forces into the reserve army it has become today.
The Dick Act was the final culmination of a number of new militia laws that did two things. They created greater efficiency and coordination between the U.S. Volunteers (later National Guard) and the Regular Army. These laws, in particular the Militia Act of 1902, reaffirmed a "three tier" system of national defense; Regular Army, National Guard, and Militia. The first major act was the creation of the U.S. Volunteers after the failure of the Militias to coordinate properly with the U.S. Army during the War of 1812. The Volunteers were first put to the test during the Mexican War of 1846 to 1848 where they were a success. Instead of Militia directly filling the ranks of the U.S. Army, they participated through the Volunteers. Thirteen years later, the American Civil War was fought "almost entirely" by Volunteers on both sides. Volunteers literally made up 95% of Union forces, and 100% of Confederate forces. Again, during the Spanish-American War of 1898, Volunteers made up the majority of U.S. fighting forces. The term “National Guard” became the official term after it was adopted from the New York Volunteers who liked to refer to themselves as the “New York National Guard.” The Dick Act essentially gave the National Guard final legal status “without” replacing the Militia which is mandated by Constitutional law. A person can be a member of the Regular Army, National Guard, and/or Militia, or any combination of the above. The Militia can still be organized and trained by the governors and the governors also share command of the various National Guard brigades which can be called to state service by the Governors or be called up for national service by the president in time of war. The Militias, including the State Guard, and other organized agencies, entities, and citizen volunteers are answerable only to the governors.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, for starters, anyone who says that any bill passed by Congress "can't be repealed," as so many sites are claiming about the Dick Act, is blowing smoke. No law becomes immutable Holy Writ when it's signed.
And I do believe that if the Dick Act makes all gun control laws invalid, the Supreme Court Justices who just gave us the Heller Decision might know that, and might have mentioned it. You think?
I've spent more time on this than it deserves, trying to find out where it came from. I can't find anything that makes sense.
What the Dick Act actually did was create our modern National Guard system. It also designated all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 as members of the unorganized militia, otherwise known as the Reserve Militia. Basically, it laid the legal basis for the draft: since they're already part of the Reserve Militia, they can be called to active duty (drafted) if and when they're needed.
Somehow, people have jumped from that simple fact to wild statements like this:
"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 doesn't say that; they're just trying to shoehorn it in. And what if it were true? If that's what they're basing their right to own guns on, they're leaving out women, disabled men, and men over the age of 45.
"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."
People are obviously throwing around fancy-sounding phrases they don't know the meaning of.
A bill of attainder is simply a legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial. An ex post facto law operates retroactively, making people guilty of a crime for having done something that was legal at the time they did it. It's true both of those are forbidden by our Constitution ... but neither one has a blessed thing to do with the Dick Act.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Since people want to claim that the 2nd amendment only applies to the Militia/National Guard - they don't realize that all males between 17 and 45 are part of it.
__________________
Liberty is for those that claim it.
The Dick Act doesn't say that; they're just trying to shoehorn it in. And what if it were true? If that's what they're basing their right to own guns on, they're leaving out women, disabled men, and men over the age of 45.
The Dick act doesn't say that - the Constitution does. As for leaving out other people - they can take it up with congress.
__________________
Liberty is for those that claim it.
The Dick act doesn't say that - the Constitution does. As for leaving out other people - they can take it up with congress.
I haven't see the article of the Constitution that says, "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."
I have read the 2nd Amendment, which says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That isn't the same thing; there are no 'absolute' rights in the Constitution, or anywhere else. It's like saying the right to free speech in the 1st Amendment gives you the right to stand in the street and scream obscenities at passers-by, or file false police reports.
There will always be reasonable limits on exercising our Constitutional rights. the Devil is in the details, of course: what's reasonable? Do you think the Constitution forbids the government to take guns away from convicted violent felons, or mental patients who have threatened to kill themselves or someone else?
I haven't see the article of the Constitution that says, "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."
I have read the 2nd Amendment, which says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I guess you have your answer.
__________________
Liberty is for those that claim it.
No, I don't. You haven't explained to me how the Dick Act confers some 'absolute' right on anyone. Or how repealing the Dick Act would have anything at all to do with bills of attainder or ex post facto laws.
By the way, the Dick Act was passed in 1903... not 1902. That mistake being endlessly repeated is one clue that people are just blindly copying from one website to another, without ever researching the Act themselves.
No, I don't. You haven't explained to me how the Dick Act confers some 'absolute' right on anyone. Or how repealing the Dick Act would have anything at all to do with bills of attainder or ex post facto laws.
.
I never mentioned the Dick act - that's your obession.
I brought up Title 10 of the US Code and how it relates to the Constitution. Nor did I say it was an absolute right - that's your strawman arguement.
Anything else you need explained?
__________________
Liberty is for those that claim it.
I never mentioned the Dick act - that's your obession.
I brought up Title 10 of the US Code and how it relates to the Constitution. Nor did I say it was an absolute right - that's your strawman arguement.
Anything else you need explained?
Excuse me? My 'obsession?!?' The subject of this thread is the Dick Act. Or hadn't you noticed?
People are claiming the Dick Act somehow invalidates all gun-control laws, confers an 'absolute right' to own any kind of weapon in any quantity, and can't be repealed. So Glock asked if anyone knew anything about it. Again, that's the subject of the thread.
If you want a thread about Title 10 of the US Code instead, go start your own thread.
There's denying a right and then there's depriving someone of a right in response to an action of their own. The Constitution has already covered that. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." So your rights can be taken away by execution, incarceration, or other means if you have done something that an impartial body holds to warrant it. In that process you're still presumed innocent until proven guilty, free from unreasonable searches and seizures, free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. That's why taking away firearms from those under restraining orders is unconstitutional. No one found them guilty of any crime.
As far as rights applying to women, we have the 14th amendment, which while at the time applied only to men of all races, current interpretation would hold it to apply to men and women equally.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
There's denying a right and then there's depriving someone of a right in response to an action of their own. The Constitution has already covered that. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." So your rights can be taken away by execution, incarceration, or other means if you have done something that an impartial body holds to warrant it. In that process you're still presumed innocent until proven guilty, free from unreasonable searches and seizures, free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. That's why taking away firearms from those under restraining orders is unconstitutional. No one found them guilty of any crime.
As far as rights applying to women, we have the 14th amendment, which while at the time applied only to men of all races, current interpretation would hold it to apply to men and women equally.
No argument from me on anything you said there....
....
