What is the Militia Bill H.R. 11654?

Have you ever heard of the “Dick Act of 1902?” More properly known as the “Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654″. Oddly enough it is not available online from government sources, only a “catalog page” found at The Library of Congress . The Dick Act’s most quoted synopsis is: 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. 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 The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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. I find it hilarious that the bill introduced to fund the National Guard’s annual exercise also provides for the unorganized militia (you and me) to own whatever we wish in the way of weaponry “for the militia”. Just another conveniently ignored facet of living in a “Republic” that the modern day politicians try to make us believe is a democracy. We the people hold the power. Exercise your power, vote to keep your guns and your freedom. Vote Republican. The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 once published the following: “Who are the militia? If not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” –Tenche Coxe, Penn Gazette I couldn’t agree more. What about  you?

Comments

  1. 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.

    • It is not 1902 but 1903 when it passed here is a brief history of the Militia Act from the U.S. Center of Military History. http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm

    • Sounds like they have gun control over the reserved militia, but not us.

      • Its a clever trick but the gun ban would be an international peace treaty of a sort. It was already signed by President Obama. Its up to states to enforce or not but that will clearly turn out to be civil war for some states. It’s only going to get worse.

        • After a long discussion on this subject on another site, the gov’t would have a big problem enforcing such a treaty, and for several reasons.

          First, no treaty supersedes our Constitution and states don’t have to honor it, even if the president says we do.

          Second, there are 300 million guns out there in these United States, and those are only the registered ones. Imagine how many are out there unregistered. It would literally take months to go around enforcing it and collecting guns (America is a very large country), especially since at least half of the people in our military would never support such an action. They would have to bring in outside help or cause some kind of disaster and declare martial law. Even then, people will know in advance it’s coming.

          Third, the govt would literally have to use an EMP or other type of mass weapon on us right here to accomplish this – there are simply too many of us. Those who don’t support guns right now would change their minds in a hurry as soon as tanks start rolling down the street and people start dying. There is no way to enforce this without civil war breaking out – no way. Politicians tend to forget that at least half of the people in this country – some 150 million of us – are willing to die to save it. Marxists are good at BS’ing people to get what they want, but that will change when/if war breaks out.

          • I agree but if the President and Senate 2/3rds make a grievous error or simply believe it is not up to them to consider constitutionality, then the States lose their power to effect law until a court (appointed by Obama) decides the issue.

            For clarity Curtis W. Caine, MD of the web site http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article4.html did a good job covering the issues :
            Further, Article VI, paragraph 2 quoted above commands that if and when all of the above requirements for a treaty are met — that is, a) it does not contradict the Constitution; b) it is negotiated by the President who has sworn to not violate, and who in fact is not violating the Constitution; and c) it is ratified by two thirds of the State-defending-Senators who have sworn to not violate, and who do not by their vote violate the Constitution — then, and only then, may the treaty in question go into full force and effect for the Union and for all of the individual States in the Union. This latter consequence is the reason for Article VI, paragraph 2 to conclude:

            “…and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]”

            So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state’s Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.

            Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not “under the Authority of the United States” to make such a treaty.

          • Wild Bill,nc says:

            Damn Jil, Me and a friend had this very conversation , yesterday , like you over herd us, he said that we were not the only ones having this same dialog at the same time….you are exactly right, this is a prime use for an EMP, then the Blue helmets would come, All of our military has a vested interest in our country, outsiders do not, only to divide and conquer. There is a reason our shores have not been breached, Admiral Yamamoto said there would be a gun behind every blade of grass, now days, there are two…

          • one thing everyone in the government also doesn’t realize is that the reason the US has never been invaded is because of our mass ownership of personal weapons

        • the UN small arms treaty is not a international peace treaty, its so millions can have no self-defense, and UN agenda 21 an be implemented, its all for world depopulation.

    • MR.Wilson1024 says:

      Where did you find these words you spoke of? I would like to read them myself.

    • Longknife21 says:

      Actually, the OP has it slightly wrong. Section 13, Issuance of Arms, discusses the keeping, accounting for, and issuing of arms from the magazines (today called the “National Guard Armory arms-room) to the Organized Militia. It doesn’t discuss the unorganized militia, whether in favor of ownership or otherwise.

    • I just wonder then why there seem to be no copies of the Act anywhere on the web…..what are they hiding? That I find strange.

    • I disagree. What you are saying applies to the regular militia. The unorganized militia are the ones that have the right to any type an as many as they can afford. 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.

      Thank You

      • Regarding The Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 and the Dick Act, please tell me where I can find a and get a copy of these two laws. It seems as though people are discussing it in depth, but no one has produced either one.
        Thank you for your input,
        Ron Williams

        • Here is the one I have:

          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

    • Jeff Gaul says:

      Michael:
      Please email me the text.
      jeff

    • Ed Sumner says:

      Ah Michael. The bill is referring to arms issued from the armory to those who may not have personal firearms for one reason or another. Issuance is the process of issuing.

  2. Politicalpony says:

    In order to constitutionally create a law any law be it Federal or State I am of the thought that first there must be a constitutional amendment to change the already established 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment clearly states in simple wording in order to not misinterpret it “…will not be infringed”. Look up the word infringed in a dictionary. I suppose depending what dictionary you look it up in it may be slightly different in terms of other lead words to look at. But you should also find the following tied to the word “infringe”. Breach, encroach, weaken…

    • Ed Sumner says:

      Actually, it says SHALL NOT be infringed. “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.” It seems like a small thing, but there is a world of difference.

  3. Politicalpony says:

    I’m sorry, I failed to mention in the above post. Therefore there is no constitutional gun law at this present time. Our Politicians and Media are debating gun law when in fact there is nothing to debate.

  4. Since a copy of the act is not available through the WEB. Need to have some one go to the Library of Congress and get a copy so we,or someone can post it on the WEB. Rather than have “Here-say” we can see the law: word for word.

    • don the bill you are talking about bill hr.11654 of 1902 aka the dick act of 1902 can be found by any search engine in short the bill talks about the army the national guard and and an untrained militia whitch is the average citizen this bill can mot be revoked or ammended and out rightly says the gun control in place right now are illegal and unenforacabel

  5. follow-up: then we can send a copy to our representatives in Washington D>C>, not that it will do any good.

  6. The Militia Act of 1903 is not the same Bill as the Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902. 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 1903 law only speaks of the organized militia (National Guard) and the regular Armed Forces. It does not speak of or change the third part of the 1902 act unorganized militia you and I “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 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.
    Constitution for the State of Arkansas; Article 11 – Militia
    Sec. 1. Persons liable to military duty. The militia shall consist of all able-bodied male persons, residents of the State, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State, and shall be organized, officered, armed and equipped and trained in such manner as may be provided by law.
    Sec. 2. Volunteer companies. Volunteer companies of infantry, cavalry or artillery may be formed in such manner and with such restrictions as may be provided by law.
    Sec. 3. Privilege of members from arrest. The volunteer and militia forces shall in all cases (except treason, felony and breach of the peace) be privileged from arrest during their attendance at muster and the election of officers, and in going to and returning from the same.
    Sec. 4. Authority to call out volunteers or militia. The Governor shall, when the General Assembly is not in session, have the power to call out the volunteers or militia, or both, to execute the laws, repel invasion, repress insurrection and preserve the public peace in such manner as may be authorized by law.
    We, the Volunteer (unenrolled) Militia of the Sovereign State of Arkansas do now Formally Declare – that among the Arms and their respective ammunition legally protected from infringement, for the Defense, Liberty, and Security of the Citizens, are:
    For the Infantry – Any rifle, pistol, or shotgun, by any name known, regardless of size, calibre, barrel length, or magazine capacity, whether automatic or semi-automatic, of past, present, or future designs.
    For the Cavalry – Including, but not limited to, Light and Heavy armored vehicles, rapid-deployment, self-powered mobile artillery, and any fixed or rotary winged aircraft.
    For the Artillery – Any cannon, all types of rocketry, anti-tank weapons, mortars, recoilless rifles, or any such other weaponry used for bombardment.

  7. Ron Williams says:

    In regard to U.S. Congress Militia Bill H.R. 11654, I need to know where within the 50 U.S. Codes and also within the 50 Code of Federal regulations this law has been published and enacted in to law. From there I can find where in the Federal Register it has been published. Otherwise how are we to know and follow such law.
    I would greatly appreciate your directing me to the appropriate place where within the 50 Codes and Regulations I can read about this unknown law.
    Thank you for your assistance in this important matter,
    Ronald George Williams
    ron williams@dc.rr.com

  8. To futher amend :the Militia Act of 1903 was amended in the 1908 Militia Act to state that the president can summon National Guard indefinitely, and can send them abroad. I wasn’t’ able to find ANYTHING in the Act that invalidated any gun control laws–and that makes perfect sense, as there have been a number of gun control laws since 1903 that have passed constitutional muster.

  9. Robert L Woods Jr says:

    I found this for a google of the ‘Dick Act’. http://www.alternatewars.com/Congress/Dick_Act.htm

    • This is NOT the Dick Act of 1902. This is actually the Militia Act of 1903. This only addresses the regular army and the ORGANIZED milita. The Dick Act of 1902 also (in effect) recognizes the UNORGANIZED milita. IT (sort of) defines each. It also reinforces the second amendment to the constitution of the United States.

  10. Robert L Woods Jr says:

    I’ve found this rebuttal on the idea that the Dick Act negates all gun control Laws. http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/dick-act-efficiency-militia-bill-758149497/a
    However, ‘militia’, in the text of the Second Amendment was NEVER defined. The Dick Act rectifies that with the definition of ‘the unorganized militia’ meaning you and me. Thus, the Second Amendment means that we ALL may own and Bear (‘open-carry’, as it’s now called) our guns.

  11. http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030724896#page/n141/mode/2up/search/national+guard

    Get educated on section 17 and 19 of this Dick Act. It states that this act only applies to the ORGANIZED MILITIA. There is more. While section 35 meant that there was a difference between the National Guard and the Army. This Act said the National Guard was the Organized Militia. And the National Defense Act combined the National Guard and the Army into one head. Hence why now you see, “Army National Guard, Air Force National Guard, Navy National Guard, Marines National Guard. Every branch of actual military is the militia itself. There is not separate entity and you are not protected unless you are enlisted.

    • There is no “Marines National Guard” or “Navy National Guard” there is only Army National Guard and Air National Guard.

      • Ed Sumner says:

        The NAVAL MILITIA of the several states. I ought to know. I was an Ensign of the Maryland Naval Militia, and an enlisted man before that.

  12. You can bet that all in favor of gun control/confiscation will try to find ways to negate this act, say it’s an urban legend or that it does not apply in our day and age, or whatever they can come up with. The present administration fully intends to disarm us. Whether Mr. Obama’s handlers in the CFR have figured that they better do it now before more people wake up to what’s going on or not, I don’t know. But, for whatever reason, they seem to want the guns now or very shortly hereafter and I expect, if they don’t get them then more shootings will follow–all perpetrated naturally by lone psychotic gunmen who end up dead so they can’t talk.

  13. BlueBilly says:

    Actually, the Congress essentially already has repealed the Dick Act, when it passed the Military Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920, and various other laws. Hard and fast rule: any act of Congress can be undone by another act of Congress (duh).
    You can’t find it except in archives because that’s the right place to publish obsolete laws.

  14. My brother recommended I would possibly like this website.
    He was totally right. This submit actually made my day.

    You can not imagine just how much time I had spent for this information!
    Thanks!

  15. wilson 319 says:

    i figured that the second amandment says it all…ppl. just make it all too complicated with gun control… the right to bear arms has nothing to do with guns… i has to do with “arming” oneself when the time arrises from criminal attack or a tyranous govt. it dosnt say anywhere about the right to own or use guns… just arming oneself… there are plenty of other weapons outthere to arm yourself with other than a gun.

  16. It’s also called “The Dick Act of 1902″

    You can check out a good read on this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

    Wonder if anyone in Congress is familiar with this one..?

    FYI–The Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN by law!

    Were you aware of this law?

    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 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 th 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.

    Sources:

    http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/gun_control_forbidden.htm

    http://rosieontheright.com/what-is-the-militia-bill-h-r-11654/

    Get this message out to all your email contacts. It’s time to learn about your rights. Our current President and the Democrats don’t seem to worry about breaking laws or the U.S. Constitution. They do things regardless even if it goes against the Constitution which they swore to abide by when each one of them took office. That itself is an impeachable offense!!!–

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” –George Mason, Speech, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

  17. BlueBilly says:

    Hate to repeat myself, but:

    Actually, the Congress essentially already has repealed the Dick Act, when it passed the Military Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920, and various other laws. Hard and fast rule: any act of Congress can be undone by another act of Congress (duh).
    You can’t find it except in archives because that’s the right place to publish obsolete laws.

    Why do people keep up this charade when the truth about this law is so easy to discover? The Dick Act doesn’t mean a thing; it’s been superceded.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: