Comments on: Pennsylvania Town Working To Nullify Federal Gun Control

By: ClayCooper

ClayCooper — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:58:06 +0000

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 The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By: ClayCooper

ClayCooper — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:56:44 +0000

By: Police Chief Seeks Nullification of Unconstitutional Gun Control « 4 Liberty Sake

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:07:36 +0000

[...] Pennsylvania Town Working To Nullify Federal Gun Control (tenthamendmentcenter.com) [...]

By: PaulBauer

PaulBauer — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:15:20 +0000

Outstanding! It’s good to see officials that haven’t been corrupted and actually want to protect and serve the people!

By: Fox News

Fox News — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:18:59 +0000

Breaking News: Vice President Joe Biden says President Obama could use executive action — and bypass Congress — to toughen gun control laws. http://tinyurl.com/a6cj85n

By: dmellon

dmellon — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:04:08 +0000

Have you ever wondered why the states ratified the tenth amendment as written? I have for two reasons. One it does not contain the word “expressly” before the word “delegated”. A similar statement in the Articles of Confederation, the “constitution” being replaced did contain that word. And second it does not explicitly say that the states are the governments that decide the constitutionality of federal laws. Why when this amendment is THE amendment that guarantees the sovereignty of the states would they not insist on greater clarity particularly because of the ambiguities in the main part of the Constitution?

You may argue it is because the states appointed the senators so that would prevent the Federal Government from assuming powers not delegated, but I think there was a different reason, one that applies to this article. Hamilton informed us of another power that the states collectively had to prevent the Federal Government from assuming powers not delegated. Military power, yes, defeat the Federal Government on the field of battle if they attempted to defile state sovereighty. He made a pretty good case for it in Federalist #28. First the states were concerned about a federal standing army in time of peace so article I, section 8 of the constitution required that the army be re-authorized every two years so the states could vote to not fund a federal army. Second the state militias in the combined states had considerably more manpower than the federal standing army and the militia were armed with the same weapons. The final advantage to the states was that of geography, that is, the vast extent of the union over which the federal army would have to engage. I believe it was the second amendment that allowed the states to accept the tenth amendment as written.