Interesting LAW that President and Congress ignore.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Interesting LAW that President and Congress ignore.

  1. #1

    Interesting LAW that President and Congress ignore.

    Don't let the first line throw you. It is serious. This is a bit lengthy but worth the read. Might be interesting to pass this on to your Congressional representatives and senators. Comments?

    THE **** ACT OF 1902! (BY CHARLES WILLIAM FREDERICK ****)

    ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS LAW?

    **** ACT OF 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT .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

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    The **** Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.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

    **** Act of 1902

    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 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 **** (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 **** in the .. **** act of 1909 i found out little abouthimhttp://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitutio
    n/gun_control/news.php?q=1237 163642
    but i found out a little more about the **** Act
    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

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    Yes, I am aware of the law; and it has been posted before on this forum. But seeing it again is worthwhile.

    The problem is the that we are no longer live in a free Constitutional Republic. Congress not only ignores this law but the Constitution. In fact many have almost no familiarity with our founding documents.. We have a president who ignores the Constitution, his enumerated powers, Congress, and even the laws he supported. The Supreme Court violates the intent of the Constitution and rationalizes their support for the progressive agenda. In short, we live in a post constitutional U.S.

    A large majority of our citizens can not list their rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If they have no idea what their right are, how can they protect them? The Declaration of Independence provides a remedy for this situation. But I'm beginning to think that there are not enough people who even care to make a difference. We need to support the small group of politicians who are still constitutionalists. It is not enough to just protect your family. We need to protect our country from the insidious, malignant evil of progressivism. I have been a student of the Constitution, the greatest governing document produced in 6000 years of human civilization, and history for 60 years. And I have no idea where to even start. I'm beginning to think that the situation is hopeless because the ignorance of the voters has doomed our republic.

  4. #3
    Well said, sadly. It will be interesting to see where it all ends, or how it continues, or how we will come through. God help us.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    And Miller V US (SCOTUS 1939) made it clear that the 2nd Amendment covered military grade weapons.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,810
    Quote Originally Posted by bigstonebeach View Post
    It will be interesting to see where it all ends, or how it continues, or how we will come through. God help us.
    America shakes it's fist at God and spits in His face everyday, why would God help us??? Even though the people living around Noah had 120 years worth of warnings regarding the doom that was to come upon the whole earth, they went about their business and basically ignored him, never comprehending the danger they were in. They grew deaf to his warnings. What's really interesting is that people alive today have had over 2000 years worth of warnings from the Bible regarding this Last Generation, "where it all ends, how/who will get through and how it continues". Most aren’t listening now either, eh?
    ~ GOD HATES RELIGION ~

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    As usual, Ringo is right, but even for agnostics and atheists, this canard that the "Schlong Act" of 1902 can't be repealed is patently ridiculous. This conclusion is not directed at the poster who opened the topic, or anyone who followed in agreement. The email and/or website and/or pamphlet type of circular has been around for years. Fighting gun control with this canard analysis of the Schlong Act of 1902 is like engaging in a gunfight with an empty gun.

    There are lots of sources to verify what I say above. I only picked the one I'm about to cite because I'm a member of the site and already knew where to find it. I can't post the whole article due to fair use rules, so you're going to have to go to this link to read it all, but I assure you, the Schlong Act of 1902 is misrepresented in the material contained in the OP.

    From the article:

    The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the **** Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.”

    Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?

    Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.


    And further into the article:

    In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty. See this article.

    But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.

    And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the **** Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.

    .....snip.....

    Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.

    Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.

    Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.

    The use of the Schlong Act to justify militia activity is certainly valid, but as an immutable, unrepealable law upon which rests all jurisdiction over 2nd Amendment rights, just think about it, the 2nd Amendment is a God-given, fundamental, unalienable right, and the Schlong Act was written under the auspices of that amendment! Right? You guys all know that. Don't allow yourselves to be distracted so easily by snake oil salesmen. The cure for our disappearing gun rights (or any rights for that matter), is to claim and defend our rights that were guaranteed for us more than 100 years before the Schlong Act ever came into existence.

    I encourage all to read the link, and if you're not happy with, or don't trust that source for some reason, simply search on the "D""i""c""k" Act (without the quote marks obviously) and find a source you can and do trust.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    The 2A is what it is and can't be repealed without due process. That being said, it doesn't matter to politically driven liberals. They seem to support and/or discard the laws that fit their agenda at a whim. No one that has the constitutional authority cares to challenge this. You can throw all the Acts you want out there. If our current leaders don't support the US Constitution, what kind of weight do you expect and Act to have?
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    The 2nd amendment gives you no rights, repealing it would do nothing. The Dck act gives you no rights, and like the 2nd Amendment could be repealed by due process. The rights we have are basic human rights, "endowed by our creator", and any "pro-gun" Amendment, law, regulation etc. is merely explaining that to the ignorant. All "anti-gun" laws, regulations and restrictions, by definition are unconstitutional, regardless what 9 old codgers with a lifetime job think.
    -
    If you think an amendment cant be changed, why don't you ask the "3/5ths of all other persons" (slaves) that used to determine our representation in Congress who are now all counted as free men. If you want to get deep into the Constitution, Indians still don't count because they pay no tax. Can they have guns Constitutionally?
    Chief

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    The 2nd amendment gives you no rights, repealing it would do nothing. The Dck act gives you no rights, and like the 2nd Amendment could be repealed by due process. The rights we have are basic human rights, "endowed by our creator", and any "pro-gun" Amendment, law, regulation etc. is merely explaining that to the ignorant. All "anti-gun" laws, regulations and restrictions, by definition are unconstitutional, regardless what 9 old codgers with a lifetime job think.
    -
    If you think an amendment cant be changed, why don't you ask the "3/5ths of all other persons" (slaves) that used to determine our representation in Congress who are now all counted as free men. If you want to get deep into the Constitution, Indians still don't count because they pay no tax. Can they have guns Constitutionally?
    And proof that Amendments can be changed, look at Prohibition. Two Amendments involved there. 18th brought it in and 21st kicked it out. 1919 to 1933.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    And proof that Amendments can be changed, look at Prohibition. Two Amendments involved there. 18th brought it in and 21st kicked it out. 1919 to 1933.
    The liberal elites don't want to deal with the process to repeal the 2A. It would take too long and the likely hood of success would be slim. Much easier to ignore it and move on. Who's going to call them on it? The main stream media, republicans who hate children, low information voters?
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast