Lawfag here
Assessment of the commentary regarding the Dick Act of 1902 in the Globals
The post in the Globals concerning the Dick Act makes the following assertions (commentary follows in italics):
-
The Dick Act of 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.
False. The Dick Act does not speak to gun control laws anywhere in the legislation that I read. The only way this assertion could possibly but weakly be construed to resemble any invalidation of gun control laws is by two interpretations of the 2A: i) that members of the public are well-regulated militia members, and ii) that any gun control law necessarily constitutes an infringement. Neither of these interpretations have been validated by the Courts.
-
It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
True.
-
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.
Mostly correct. To be entirely precise, the 3 classes of military organizations are the standing Regular Army, the organized militia known as the National Guard, and the Enrolled Militia which is every able-bodied male between 18-45.
-
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.
Mostly true. There are restrictions on aliens who do not intend to become citizens, and I am sure that subsequent legislation has probably invalidated most, if not all, felons and some misdemeanants guilty of moral turpitude crimes, and possibly a few other technical changes. However, keep in mind that military personnel can serve beyond the age of 45 and, in addition, there is no limitation which cannot be altered by a subsequent act of Congress.
-
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.
Total nonsense. The Dick Act makes no such provision anywhere in its text.
-
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
More total nonsense. The Dick Act can most certainly be repealed and replaced, or altered and amended - which it has been. This is just a daydreamer's interpretation of how repeal would violate the 2A, which it would not, in and of itself.
-
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.
Again, total nonsense. No provision of the Dick Act either expressly, or by operation with other laws, makes this statement true.
Sorry if this offends, but I call 'em as I see them. I'm aware that some self-help legal sites have some bogus language describing the Dick Act, but that's to be expected.
The link below is the pamphlet with the commentary on the Dick Act from the Library of Congress…the language discussed from Washington to the Spanish-American war is inconsistent in discussing the clear ramifications of whether "a well-regulated militia" would be necessarily limited to the National Guard, or to private citizens in general. Some of President Washington's on commentary leans towards a "NG only" understanding, while commentary from President Jackson and the Chief of Ordnance from the Spanish-American war period indicate that it includes both volunteers and organized NG members. I personally interpret that to mean and require a broad construction of "militia" under the 2A, which would include private citizens (including females).
Not particularly thrilled this post became a Global with so much misleading info, but to each his own.