PDA

View Full Version : The DICK ACT???


saint7
12-22-2012, 4:20 PM
Anyone know if this is true?

More or less concerned with the "unorganized militia" being able to have what they want and as many as they want as long as they can afford it.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642

USMCM16A2
12-22-2012, 5:38 PM
Saint,



Have a look of this,

Actually, the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 does NOT articulate nor insinuate members of the “reserve” militia have rights to gun ownership. In Section 13, Issuance of Arms, it insinuates the reserve militia is not already armed. It further states, “That said rifles and carbines and other property shall be receipted for and shall remain the property of the United States and shall be annually accounted for….” Taken within this context, the Bill actually insinuates gun regulation by government. To be clear, I am a supporter of gun ownership but I think it is important to be factual.

Also, in Section 4, To be called forth, “…whenever the United States is invaded or in danger of invasion from a foreign nation, or rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, or the President is unable, with other forces at his command, to execute the laws of the Union in any part thereof, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth, for a period not exceeding nine months, such number of the militia of the State or of the States or Territories or of the District of Columbia as he may deem necessary to repel such invasion…..” Clearly, the whole nine month thing has been compromised extensively and I’m not sure sending the National Guard to any foreign country is within the spirit of the Bill but it does give the President the authority to call up the reserves.

SwissFluCase
12-22-2012, 5:41 PM
Saint,



Have a look of this,

Actually, the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 does NOT articulate nor insinuate members of the “reserve” militia have rights to gun ownership. In Section 13, Issuance of Arms, it insinuates the reserve militia is not already armed. It further states, “That said rifles and carbines and other property shall be receipted for and shall remain the property of the United States and shall be annually accounted for….” Taken within this context, the Bill actually insinuates gun regulation by government. To be clear, I am a supporter of gun ownership but I think it is important to be factual.

Also, in Section 4, To be called forth, “…whenever the United States is invaded or in danger of invasion from a foreign nation, or rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, or the President is unable, with other forces at his command, to execute the laws of the Union in any part thereof, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth, for a period not exceeding nine months, such number of the militia of the State or of the States or Territories or of the District of Columbia as he may deem necessary to repel such invasion…..” Clearly, the whole nine month thing has been compromised extensively and I’m not sure sending the National Guard to any foreign country is within the spirit of the Bill but it does give the President the authority to call up the reserves.

This brings up an interesting point. It has been said that even post Heller registration might be constitutional, but I would say only in the case where the arms are owned by the government.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

USMCM16A2
12-22-2012, 5:41 PM
Folks,



As I first read this, it brings back the scene from "Full Metal Jacket" this is my rifle this is my gun. They should change this title to the Pudd Control Act of 1902. A2

dustoff31
12-22-2012, 5:54 PM
The idea that any act of congress cannot be changed or repealed by a future congress is simply wrong.

Anyway, it's the Dick Act of 1903, not 1902. And it was in fact amended by the Dick Act of 1908.

http://kynghistory.ky.gov/history/3qtr/dickact.htm

1903 Dick Act

In sum, the provisions of the bill, essentially a compromise, eliminated once and for all time the archaic Militia Act of 1792. It divided American male citizenry into two classes: the National Guard (Organized Militia), and the Reserve Militia, in which were lumped all other male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. National Guard organization, armament, and discipline were to be identical with those of the Regular Army. Federal pay was granted for summer training camps and other activities, including joint maneuvers with the Regulars; drill and instruction periods were to take place at least twenty-four times a year. Regular officers were to be provided as inspectors-instructors. As to the Reserve Militia, this legal function at least perpetuated the original colonial concept of universal military obligations.

1908 Amendment

Also in 1908, by an amendment to the Dick Bill, Congress lifted both the nine-month limitation on Federal Militia service and the restriction forbidding National Guard service outside the continental limits of the United States. However, it was apparent that the Guard, despite the goodwill of its uniformed membership, was still limping. A report by the Secretary of War in 1910, an analysis drawn by the Army War College and supported by statistical data, submitted on order from Congress, summed up the Guard's deficiencies: inadequate strength, insufficient arms reserve, and lack of combat balance of forces. Its pessimistic conclusion stated that "It is apparent that we are almost wholly unprepared for war. The things we need will take the longest to supply."

Additional information

http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm

saint7
12-22-2012, 8:31 PM
Thanks for the info guys... I just got all excited when I read it and wanted to see if there was any truth to it... I looked it up in Wiki and it was vague and you are right dustoff it is 1903.