thought this should be seen

[barone44]

This message cites facts that can be verified and should not be ignored
by any responsible person in this good ole USA.

THE DICK ACT OF 1909 !!

Wonder who in Washington is supposed to keep up with all the laws that have
been passed (and ignored) throughout the years?

THE BILL was passed back in 1902 and grants full rights to anyone who wants
to own as many guns as they can afford. Any movement to limit guns or
magazines will be in direct violation of this law. Pass it around.

THE DICK ACT OF 1902! (BY CHARLES WILLIAM FREDERICK DICK) ARE YOU AWARE OF
THIS?

DICK ACT OF 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - PROTECTION
AGAINST TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT ..

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS COUNTING ON THE FACT THAT THE
AMERICAN CITIZENS DON'T KNOW THIS, THEIR RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION. DON'T
PROVE THEM RIGHT.

THE DICK ACT OF 1902 ALSO KNOWN AS THE EFFICIENCY OF MILITIA BILL H.R.
11654 OF JUNE 28, 1902 and 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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of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.

Source... <http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/gun_control_forbidden.htm>
http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info..._forbidden.htm

Get this message out to all your email contacts. It's time to learn about
your rights.

(Thus making all California ( Colorado & others) gun & magazine limiting
laws illegal !!!)

I'm not so sure the current administration KNOWS, nor even cares, what the
laws, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence say.

But it doesn't matter to them anyway. He and his minions certainly don't
have any respect for them or us and will continue to do whatever they can
get away with to further their cause of gaining complete control.

Charles William Frederick Dick (November 3, 1858 - March 13, 1945) was a
Republican politician from Ohio. He served in the United States House of
Representatives and U.S. Senate.

I was curious as to who was the Dick in the DICK act of 1909 and found out
little about him, but I found out a little more about the Dick Act.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_d...tion/gun_contr
ol/news.php?q=1237163642

<http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitutio>
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_d...us_constitutio
<http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_d...ution/gun_cont
rol/news.php?q=1237163642> n/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia
(the National Guard) cannot 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.

[sprrdhawk44]

Laws shmaws. They do what they want.

[elweasel]

Snopes says it is false.

[GunLawyer001]

Snopes says it is false.

Although the Lefty couple behind Snopes will often twist the facts to help their Progressive buddies, in this case they have the better argument.

Even if a century-old law WERE clearly being violated by the entire US govt and most states, the fact is that govt is about power, not about limits. There's a scene in one of the "3 Musketeers" movies where the naive D'Artagnan triumphantly shows the evil Richelieu (played by Charlton Heston) a document which says that the bearer gets a free pass, signed by Richelieu himself. He hands it to Richelieu, who promptly destroys it.

Laws are only as powerful as people allow them to be. Do you think the villagers carrying torches and pitchforks to Baron Von Frankenstein's castle would have been deterred by some sort of writ, requiring them to go home? Nope. Inter arma enim silent leges, roughly translated as "in the face of force, the law is silent."

You can weave together whatever claims you wish about the braid of the flag behind the judge, or whether you're engaged in "commerce" while driving on public highways, or you can even point out that the Feds have no police powers and the Commerce Clause can't begin to stretch far enough to cover all the Federal criminal statutes...and they'll still slap the cuffs on you and send you to jail, just like they had real power.

I can't cover every wild claim in the OP, but I will point out that NO statute is beyond amendment from future Congresses. Even the Constitution can be amended, if the process is followed. It just takes a majority vote to undo most laws, a supermajority in some circumstances. That's why all those 10-year plans are bullshit, they are passed so that a scheme that clearly saves no money can be claimed to save money "in years 9 and 10".

[Gunowner99]

A bunch of nonesense.

[elweasel]

When I first read this post, I was reminder of those people who say you don't need to pay income tax because of something or another reason.(Wesley Snipes) I was going to logically argue the post, it was late. so I just left it as it is false.

[barone44]

just thought it should be seen, im not saying they cant amend anything, i know this is over 100 years old, if its even real, im just saying its crazy, and its certainly crazy what we have become in "merica", but its not just us, the whole world is off track

[RockIsland]

Does this mean that we can get .22's at Dick's now?

[bogey1]

When I first read this post, I was reminder of those people who say you don't need to pay income tax because of something or another reason.(Wesley Snipes) I was going to logically argue the post, it was late. so I just left it as it is false.

Supposedly there is now law stating you have to pay taxes. Try it though and see what happens.
I long for the day the infernal revenue service and the federal reserve are no more.