Colonel Dan, SASS #24025 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I've been receiving email asking about the Dick Act and its applicability in our fight to preserve the Second Amendment. I turned the question over to a very trusted source I've relied on over the years for just such issues. My resource has access to multiple legal databases and references which I do not, is a highly respected, exceedingly well versed and intelligent legal mind of high standing. A gun owner and constitutional conservative---in other words, he's on the pro-constitution side. Due to his official position however, his opinions are provided on condition of non-attribution which I've respected throughtout the years. Bottom line: take my word for it, this man is reliable and knows of what he speaks. CD --------------------- "The Militia Act of 1903 was also known as the Dick Act in honor of Senator (andNational Guard Major General) Charles W.F. Dick. It's purpose was to remedydeficiencies in the performance of militia troops during the Spanish-AmericanWar (where militia units looked pretty bad compared not only to Regular ArmyUnits but even Volunteer units like Roosevelt's Rough Riders). Restrictions onthe use of militia as private armies for governors together with restrictions onfederalization were offset by Federal funding and training requirements.(Keeping the citizen soldiers at a acceptable level of readiness has been aconstant problem. Some National Guard units have gone to war ready to kicktail and take names while others, well, not so much). Allegedly, the act defines every able-bodied male between 18and 45 as members of the unorganized militia and, supposedly, gives suchmilitiamen the absolute right to purchase, keep and bear whatever arms theydesire. There is a small problem that the Act doesn't say anything of thesort and its militia defining provisions have been amended substantially afterboth World Wars. The applicable legal authorities contain nothing, as in zip and nada, indicatingthat able bodied militiamen are excused from compliance with gun control laws, afact that surely somebody accused of a fire-arms related offense would havementioned in the last 111 years if there was an iota of a chance of beating therap that way. I found no case law, law review articles, or even professionalcommentary suggesting such a thing. As a response to contemporary SecondAmendment infringements, the Dick Act appears to be wishful thinking." Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Could you go back and ask him if there is anything that prohibits an "able-bodied male between 18 and 45" from purchasing military grade hardware? Especially in light of the 9th & 10th amendments. Just looking at it from a different angle. Too many people, lawyers included, look at what is specifically allowed rather than what is prohibited. Link to comment
Tom Foolery U.S.M. #2348 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Thank you for the information and thank your learned friend. TF Link to comment
Colonel Dan, SASS #24025 Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 Good question Joe. I'll put that to him and see what he says. Link to comment
tumbleweed tess Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Carful boys Could this also mean only males between 18-45 have these rights and those over along with us women have no gun rights?? Link to comment
Colonel Dan, SASS #24025 Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 Response to Joe's question: ------------- There does not appear to be anything in the Dick Act that directly relates to the purchase of weapons, military grade or otherwise, by the people defined as members of the unorganized militia. The Act does indicate that after being called into the armed service of the United State, the militiaman is subject to the same rules as other members of our Armed Forces. Arguably, that might include the rules governing the private acquisition and transportation of personally-owned weapons. However, nothing in the Act appears to change the rules regarding the acquisition of firearms prior to being called into active service. Secondly, it appears that Governors can requisition military grade weapons for use by militiamen called into active service. However, the Act is very clear that the weapons remain the property of the United States. Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Thanks for the update, Dan. I should have thought to throw in part of the Miller Decision too: "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from thedebates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies andStates, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainlyenough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of actingin concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled formilitary discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called forservice these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied bythemselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.