The Dick Act is Not the Gun-Control Holy Grail

Amber Harrison January 31, 2013 CONTROVERSY, OPINION, POLITICS

Those of you circulating information about the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 (the Dick Act), PLEASE cease and desist. You know, the email and Facebook snippet that’s being touted as the Holy Grail of Second Amendment rights, and includes this ridiculous statement: “The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” (Boldface added for emphasis)?

One Congress can ABSOLUTELY repeal the acts of any previous Congress. It’s as simple as that. So please, stop spreading this drivel. At best it’s disinformation, at worst it’s ludicrous. And I’m not even going to address the if-I-write-it-they-will-come lunacy of including “bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.“

The writers of the Constitution chose their words carefully. Any law which in any way hinders the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is illegal. ALL gun control laws are illegal. A law creating multiple definitions and divisions of “militia” does not override the Second Amendment. The most amusing part is: The Dick Act has been superseded several times. It’s ALREADY been “repealed.” And the superseding acts don’t override the Second Amendment either.

Advocates for the Second Amendment Are Grasping at Straws

It appears that many Americans are stretching the limits of the believable, looking for a magical mantra that will not only keep the Federal government away from our guns and keep the ATF from busting in our doors, but to also miraculously change the minds of those who are supporting stricter gun control. So many supporters of the Second Amendment have seem to forgotten that the Constitution of the United States is the law of this land, and no one – not the President, not Congress, not the FBI or ATF or any of the alphabet gangs -is above it. So many supporters of gun control have forgotten the same thing. It’s not surprising, actually – Americans have given up so many of their fundamental rights in the ultimately fruitless pursuit of safety and security that most people have stopped paying attention to the egregious slashing of the Bill of Rights happening right under their noses. Our government has become a self-perpetuating entity, an entity that has convinced America that we cannot live without it.

The fact is, the government cannot live without us. We’ve allowed our politicians to manipulate us into believing “popular opinion” and “majority” mean something in this country. Sorry, they don’t. The Constitution (and the amendments thereof) is the law, and it directs, grants, and limits each and every power and responsibility of the Federal government. And it is our right, duty, and obligation to ensure they fulfill those duties and responsibilities – with our unalienable rights enjoying the utmost care and respect.

The JFPO published an article stating,” That each person is responsible for his own defense against criminals has long been the law in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court implied this in 1856, when it decided South v. Maryland, and held that a sheriff did not have a duty to protect an ordinary person, but only had a duty generally to uphold the Law. The Court indirectly re-affirmed Americans’ private and personal right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense purposes. More recently, a U.S.Appellate Court reaffirmed that the government has no duty to protect the average person. In 1939 [with regard to United States v. Miller, the only U.S. Supreme Court case reviewing the Second Amendment in the last 70 years] the Supreme Court was not asked to recognize that Americans never have had a right to protection by the government, and so have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Because the average person’s right to self-defense – and to the possession of firearms for that purpose – has not been explicitly recognized,criminals’ abuse of firearms has been used to justify sharp curtailments of law-abiding persons’ civil right to be armed. Laws concerning the ownership of firearms for personal defense need to be adjusted to recognize that South v. Maryland implicitly re-affirmed Americans’ right to own firearms for personal defense. As a result, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot lawfully be a pretext to deprive the law-abiding of those firearms (boldface added).

In other words, we don’t need to find the Holy Grail of sensibility to resist further infringement. We are holding it in our hands.

That said, let’s back up a bit.

A Historical Perspective

From our Declaration of Independence, In Congress on July 4, 1776:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.“

Firstly, this is irrefutable proof that our Founding Fathers recognized that each of us has “certain unalienable rights,” rights endowed by the “Creator.” Doesn’t matter if you believe in God, the Declaration of Independence rests on the premise that God believes in you.

Secondly, our Founding Fathers recognized that a government can become tyrannical only if the people allow it. They provided for a government whose sole power lies in the “consent of the governed,” the governed having the right – and obligation – to “alter or abolish” any government or form of government that poses a threat to the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thirdly, our Founding Fathers acknowledged a very important and telling human trait – a trait that should be easily recognizable to anyone currently in America: ”…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves…“. In other words, people will take the devil they know over the devil they don’t any day of the week, even if the devil they know is abusive, tyrannical, repressive, and wholly self-perpetuating.

11 years later, the Federal Convention met to revise the Articles of Confederation. After several months of discussion and debate, it became clear that amendment to the Articles would not be sufficient, and an entirely new frame of government would be drafted instead. Throughout the summer, closed sessions were held to draft a comprehensive governing document… and on September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was ratified and established.

Stay with me while we examine a bit more closely what our Founding Fathers were doing with this reframed document:

Article I., Section I. ” All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” This means that only Congress can enact legislation. The ATF can’t just make up laws and regulations. Neither can the President.

Article II, in entirety, states the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military and of “the Militia of the several states” if that Militia is called into action in the service of the United States. The President has the power to require any Executive Department to report with regard to the duties of their Department, and he has the power to grant reprieve/pardon for offenses against the United States (except for impeachment, obviously). He can make treaties with the consent of Congress, he can appoint United States Officers and Supreme Court judges, and “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” In other words, the President is tasked with being the guardian of the Constitution, and ensuring that the law of the land is supreme. But the President does not have the power to make law.

Further, nowhere in the Articles of the Constitution does it grant power to any branch of the Federal government to restrict, regulate, suppress, or otherwise impose upon the tools of “the militia.” The powers of Congress, the President, or any Executive department do not extend to regulation of firearms and ammunition (among other things). Period.

Now, moving on to the Bill of Rights, we see the Second Amendment in all of its glorious simplicity: ”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.” ”Infringed” means “violated.” Synonyms of “infringe” include “breach,” “contravene,” “encroach,” “impose,” “intrude,” “invade,” “meddle,” “steal,” “offend,” “transgress,” and “trespass.” Replace “infringed” with any one of these synonyms and it should be obvious that the Framers were really serious about the right of American citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their liberty – and about their roles as Citizen Soldiers. This right – this unalienable right – shall not be infringed.

In a 1986 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, David T. Hardy wrote, “The closing phrase of the Second Amendment favors neither the collective nor the individual right interpretation, but its absolute language suggests that the Framers intended to recognize the right in the strongest possible language. Early courts and commentators were in accord with this view, stressing that “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.” Some early courts and commentators even suggested that the choice of the term “shall not be infringed” rather than “Congress shall make no law” (as is used in the First Amendment) indicated a desire to prohibit such action by states as well as the federal government.

From The Oxford Companion to US Military History: The concept of the “citizen-soldier” is based on the notion that citizens have the obligation to arm themselves to defend their communities or nations from foreign invaders and from domestic tyrants. Usually associated with republicanism, it is best understood in opposition to other forms of military organization, particularly the practices of hiring mercenaries or establishing professional standing armies of the state. In the latter two cases, soldiers and officers are isolated from society and can represent a praetorian challenge to legitimate rule. By contrast, the citizen-soldiers embody the will of the people directly because they are the people. They have a stake in preserving liberties and rights in a society, hence supplying a check on tyranny and corruption of governments.

Richard W. Stevens noted, “Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm ‘the people.’”

Further, the United States, as an entity, is a product of the Constitution. When the government punishes a American citizen abroad, the protection of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not stripped from the individual because the individual is in another land. All agreements made with a foreign nation are restricted by the Constitution to the degree of power they confer on any branch of the government. No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.

So What Now?

As the only Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment was seventy years ago, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States vs. Miller, which is essentially a narrow form of the individual rights approach to interpretation of the Second Amendment. The decision shares at least most of the amendment’s historical virtues, but is incapable of dealing with changes in infantry weapons technology that have occurred in the 20th century. Under that approach, legislatures are prohibited from restricting the possession of modern weapons by private citizens because these weapons can be used for military purposes.

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in United States vs. Miller was a broad-based general ruling which gave the government license to restrict Americans’ civil right to be armed should also accept the Court’s logic, and consider plainly unconstitutional bans on: new manufacture of fully-automatic and semi-automatic military-type firearms, the new manufacture of detachable ammunition holders (magazines), especially those types of magazines which are standard U.S. military issue, and possession and sale of armor-piercing ammunition. These types of firearms, accessories, and ammunition are precisely those most suitable for military and militia use. and have been so issued by the Federal government to U.S. armed forces. The Court held that the keeping and bearing of such firearms was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.

And those who think, like I do, that the Supreme Court made a narrow decision in 1939, which affected only short-barreled shotguns, should think the above bans are plainly unconstitutional, and so in need of Supreme Court review.

Should we be given such a golden opportunity, it must be established by powerful documentary and expert evidence beyond any doubt that the use by U.S. military and militia forces of certain classes of firearms, ammunition, and magazines – which have been banned from civilian possession– makes such bans unconstitutional. Additionally, South v. Maryland (1856) and a large body of later Federal and State jurisprudence , by effectively relieving the government of a duty to protect the average person, implicitly recognizes the civil right of the law-abiding person to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

Thus, if the Holy Grail of gun control is what you seek, leave all reference to the dead-and-gone Dick Act and find it in this statement supported by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and existing case law: If, according to established precedent, the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed for self-defense, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot be used to justify depriving the law-abiding of those firearms.

http://www.facebook.com/chas.driver.1 Chas Driver

This is a great article, an eye opener and should be read by ALL Americans.
http://www.facebook.com/ronald.kinney1 Ronald Kinney

You seem to be conveniently (or intentionally) forgetting District of Columbia v. Heller, the case regarding the DC total handgun ban… “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Lies is not the way to reach a favorable end to the gun debate…
- Amber Harrison
  
  I did not forget District of Columbia v. Heller, I left it out.
  
  The finding in that case does not add – nor does it detract – from this commentary; however, many do agree with the Circuit Judge’s statement prior to USSC writ of certiorari: “To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment’s declaration and guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.” Certiorari was, in fact, granted by CHANGING the question itself.
  
  Regardless, the omission here was made in good faith, as the case is not believed to be a relevant USSC review with regard to the Second Amendment due to the nature of its origin. It appears you are going to insist I include District of Columbia v. Heller, to keep me honest and all that (“Lies is [sic] not the way…” indeed), so I oblige:
  
  “We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…”
- Amber Harrison
  
  I did not forget District of Columbia v. Heller, I left it out.
  
  The finding in that case does not add – nor does it detract – from this commentary; however, many do agree with the Circuit Judge’s statement prior to USSC writ of certiorari: “To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment’s declaration and guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.” Certiorari was, in fact, granted by CHANGING the question itself.
  
  Regardless, the omission here was made in good faith, as the case is not believed to be a relevant USSC review with regard to the Second Amendment due to the nature of its origin. It appears you are going to insist I include District of Columbia v. Heller, to keep me honest and all that (“Lies is [sic] not the way…” indeed), so I oblige:
  
  “We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…”
  - Chuck Penn
    
    Excellent. How was the question CHANGED? What was the original issue vs. the one upon which certiorari was granted?
    - Amber Harrison
      
      In order to apply the case to the United States as a whole, the original premise of the decision was omitted prior to granting certiorari (in that the case was limited to the D.C., which is NOT a state but a federal enclave).
Eddie

You say congress can repeal laws? Can Congress repeal the Constitution that gives these men their seat of power? Can they repeal the bill of rights? Is it their duty to declare existing laws unconstitutional? Isn’t that the US Supreme courts Authority? Wouldn’t they have to have an Amendment to grant new rights? Do they have authority to take away existing rights? I think your argument against the Dick act is a weak one. Because it is an existing law that has never been declared unconstitutional. There have been no such amendments to the Constitution to subvert this law. If we are a nation based on laws, then we need to respect and enforce the existing laws.Which, the Dick act of 1902 is existing and has never been repealed. Any laws that have been created since this law that is conflict should be considered unconstitutional. You sound like a communist trying to argue against Americans rights afforded to the American people by there forefathers,
- Amber Harrison
  
  Eddie, I’m not sure what point you are trying to get across here. But I think maybe if you went back and re-read the article – which is my opinion and is explicitly stated as such – most of the questions you seem to be asking are already answered. But to clarify, I’m not arguing “against the Dick Act.” I am only saying it’s unnecessary and, well, silly to USE it in an argument because 1)it isn’t relevant, and 2)it’s been superseded.
  
  Here are the National Archives : http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/168.html#168.2, in which you will find that the 1902 “Dick Act” has been superseded. And the Acts that superseded that Act have been superseded. And so on.
  
  I think you missed the entire section of the article dedicated to quotes from our Constitution regarding the law-making duties and powers of Congress. Go back and check it out. Or better yet, READ our Constitution. I think it’s important that you do based on this statement, “Which, the Dick act of 1902 is existing and has never been repealed. Any laws that have been created since this law that is conflict should be considered unconstitutional.” It seems as though you are saying the Dick Act somehow trumps the Constitution… and I beg to differ, friend.
- J.Appleseed
  
  The Dick Act of 1902 (some say 1903) has been modified several times to the effect that its’ original purpose and intent have been made null and void, but, as you say, not declared Unconstitutional as that action has not been necessary. The changes in 1908 and later (1910 & 1916, etc) effectively eliminated the “Efficiency of Militia Bill 11654″ and modified its importance from protection of the Militia to essentially creating the modern day National Guard. The research and data in this article is correct and it is well written….I would not agree that this author is like a communist, but rather like a good researcher and presenter of fact. Read up Bub…
  - http://www.facebook.com/chicks968 Cody Hicks
    
    Maybe it would be a good idea to research a dictionary that was current at the time the constitution and bill of rights and the federalist papers and anti federalist papers were composed. They aren’t really that hard to find. Also The federalists papers are a great read as they explain the intent and reasoning behind the language also the anti federalist papers. The intent and meaning isn’t as foggy as you would lead to believe. Lets also not forget that several states have clauses in their constitutions/charters that in their own words basically say that as a resident you are a participant in the state militia.
    
    .
    - http://www.facebook.com/chicks968 Cody Hicks
      
      POSTED BY: CDR D AT JANUARY 27, 2013 05:59 PM
      
      “Congress of the United States
      begun and held at the City of New-York, on
      Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
      
      The US Constitution
      
      FRINGE:
      noun:
      something resembling a fringe : edge, periphery
      
      Synonyms: borderline, bound, boundary, brim, circumference, compass, confines, edge, edging, end, frame, border, hem, margin, perimeter, periphery, rim, skirt, skirting, verge
      
      INFRINGE:
      Transitive verb: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
      
      Intransitive verb: encroach — used with on or upon
      
      synonyms see trespass
      
      en·croachin-?kr?ch, en-
      intransitive verb
      1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
      
      Synonym discussion: trespass encroach infringe invade mean to make inroads upon the property, territory, or rights of another. trespass implies an unwarranted or unlawful intrusion . encroach suggests gradual or stealthy entrance upon another’s territory or usurpation of another’s rights or possessions . infringe implies an encroachment clearly violating a right or prerogative . invade implies a hostile and injurious entry into the territory or sphere of another .
      
      From Webster’s Dictionary
      
      Amendment II
      
      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.
      
      From the U. S. Constitution.
      
      The writers of the Constitution chose their words carefully. Any law which in any way hinders the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is illegal. ALL gun control laws are illegal. A law creating multitple definitions and divisions of “milita” does not override the 2nd amendment.
      
      POSTED BY: MIKE GARDNER AT JANUARY 27, 2013 09:57 PM
      
      Just follow our 2nd Amendment as required by la
      - http://www.facebook.com/chicks968 Cody Hicks
        
        It still surprises me as to the number of people who believe false history. First, the 1903 has not been repealed as you suggested by the 1916 National defense Act or legislation in 1920. The Federal definition of militia as being of two types, organized and unorganized- is still active. The 1916 Act, section 79, invoked this description in the creation of reserve battalions from which men would be drawn to replace regular Army troops lost in combat. Section 79 requires the National Guard to be federalized as a first step. As for where these men come from, Section 79 states they come from the unorganized militia as defined by Act in 1903. It was section 79 that was repealed in 1920 as part of the effort at shutting down selective service following World War 1.
      - Amber Harrison, author
        
        I notice that this comment, in part, quotes my (this) article. I see no quotation marks, nor any attribution. The comment is difficult to understand, both in context and purpose, but it does appear that my quote is being attributed to “Mike Gardner.”
        
        When you edit your comment to insert quotation marks and attribution for my material, it would be great if you would also explain what it is you’re trying to say. It sort of sounds like you are positing that the Dick Act is still relevant? If so, I’m not sure what it has to do with the discussion at hand?
      - http://www.facebook.com/chicks968 Cody Hicks
        
        no CDR posted this as it is noted at the top of the post.
http://www.facebook.com/lamar.huffstutler Lamar Huffstutler

Excellent!
Moe

Very informative and powerful article, well written.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Red-Dawn/100002923577926 Red Dawn

This is the line I find most interesting (One Congress can ABSOLUTELY repeal the acts of any previous Congress. It’s as simple as that).If this is true then we should be repealing obamacare soon.
Gunny1

Stop and think for just one minute. WHY WAS THE SECOND AMENDMENT WRITTEN?

The second amendment was put in place so the government could /would basically fear the repercussions if it were to try and be the same as what our for fathers had fought to leave behind so that there siblings and all future Americans would not have to live under
such rule.
Now look around. If the government were to be allowed to take weapons from honest people the “bad guys” would still have theirs and be able to do ANYTHING they wanted.
How many honest people do you know with unregistered military grade weapons? One more little one: without “civilians” having weapons. Who in your family would you like to be molested, raped, beaten or anything else on a regular basis?
Check history and other countries. Pacifism is for those who would like to be ruled or dead.
- Amber Harrison
  
  Gunny-
  I’m not sure to whom your comment was directed?
  
  Thank you for reading and commenting.
- technicallysane
  
  I perfectly understood what you meant Gunny and totally concur and couldn’t have said it better myself. You made it so there’s no room for guess work.
  Having said that….I fear that our government is doing just what you said….”trying to be the same as what our forefathers had fought to leave behind”. This is why we have no choice but as a people impose our will on the government.
Amos2

If I understand this article correctly, the Second Amendment merely codified
an already existing right and practice that no historical footnote ever reported as being challenged by any right minded person at that time. At this point in the history of our Nation, settlers were already in the possession of firearms that were deemed necessary for self-defense and the procuring of food.

Colonists, later Citizens were establishing themselves further and further westward. Their need for firearms was imperative and preemptive of any right provided by any legal authority. To argue that the Second Amendment gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms is disingenuous and facetious. This right and practice preexisted both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So, if this right preexisted both these documents, where did it come from? Very simply, it came from a person’s natural right to self-defense and a right to secure food for himself and his family.

No law, enacted by any legal body, can under any circumstance subvert, regulate or deny a human being, and an American Citizen, a natural right accorded to him by nature or nature’s God.
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.martin.587606 Brandon Lake Martin

Im posting it and there’s nothing you can do about it. God bless the first amendment.
- Amber Harrison
  
  I wish I knew what you mean by that, Brandon. If you mean you’re posting mis-information about the Dick Act, that only means you didn’t take the time to read this article.
  - http://www.facebook.com/brandon.martin.587606 Brandon Lake Martin
    
    I know that gun control limits and restricts which is the very definition of infringement. Thus making gun control unconstitutional.
    - Amber Harrison
      
      Again, read the article. I have stated as much in its content. And more. Seems odd that you would take the time to comment on a text you haven’t even read.
    - Amber Harrison
      
      And you have only have to read to the third paragraph to get to that part.
http://www.facebook.com/norman.c.hoffmann Norman Hoffmann

Beautiful. Just what I was looking for. Thank you. Peace of Mind.
http://www.facebook.com/speakerman1 Larry Mellette

How long would it be in effect before the USSC ruled it was unconstitutional? A few years. Would the law be effective till then?

The Dick Act is Not the Gun-Control Holy Grail

Advocates for the Second Amendment Are Grasping at Straws

A Historical Perspective

So What Now?

TOP STORIES

FOLLOW ALW ON SOCIAL MEDIA