.

Dick Act of 1902?

serfserf Member Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭
Does presence of pass legislation on The second amendment carry any weight in our Union? Nope not according to Snopes! I disagree with them myself.

In English composition any period comma or conjunction separates the clauses and makes it a complete sentence.

serf

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dick-act-of-1902/

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.

Under current public law, the militia of the United States comprises two classes, not three: the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of those who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The ?regular army? (i.e., the U.S. Army) is not a class of militia.

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,840 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    'Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of U.S. legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an ?absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type.? The term ?unorganized militia? simply refers to a subset of private individuals (i.e., men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia), and those persons are subject to the same legislative limitations on firearm ownership and possession as any other private individuals. The existence and enforcement of modern laws limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms is prima facie evidence that those laws have not been ?invalidated? by a piece of legislation enacted back in 1903. (And even if such a claim were true, then the unfettered right to keep and bear arms would not apply to men over the age of 45 or to any women, as neither of those groups falls within the legal definition of ?unorganized militia.?)'

    While Snopes is correct that the Dick Act had no bearing on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, they have, as noted in the OP, deliberately misstated the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment. Conflating membership in a militia with the RTKBA is a buggering of the English language as was stated by Scalia in the Heller decision.

    All that said, we know that the even those that pretend to be Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court (including Scalia) specifically state, as did Snopes, that even though the 2nd Amendment codifies an individual right, and is incorporated upon all government entities, the long standing practice of these entities infringing upon that right has been deemed Constitutional. The fact that these laws exist is not prima facie evidence that these laws are Constitutional, it is prima facie evidence that SCOTUS is in bed with legislatures in goal of preserving the power of government over its subjects.

    The Dick Act had and has nothing to do with it. A straw man argument by Snopes.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yep the supreme court bends to political sway and they cannot deny it. They think they are the for all end all for sound judgments however they are nothing but hypocrites with an agenda.

    The militias that are unorganized is thee we the people in any sense of the meaning for The Second Amendment.

    serf
Sign In or Register to comment.