Send This To Your Congressman To Let Them Know That They Have No Authority To Ban Any Weapon Or Pass Unconsitutional Gun Laws.

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The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills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. 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.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National
Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the
laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the
only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National
Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized
Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside
the limits of the United States.
”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday,
October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson inl that he felt
Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a
bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and
45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by
Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the
militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the
regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any
circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of
the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we
have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to
obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech
which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September
10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of
these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United
States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that
the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is
the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the
militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater
care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the
power of Congress over it.
”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly
establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit
the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment,
because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be
conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of
money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not
required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power
to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct
conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section
and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed
to restrain the unlimited use of such power.
”

The Honorable William Gordon

More Info
With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE
government (federal gov’t defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002
(15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002
(10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a
tyrannical government. I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina
can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about
200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment’s notice. Imagine the
State of Texas or Oklahoma if that’s the case?

Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor
measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our
current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the
Constitution:

“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the
supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October
1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO
Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep
reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the
Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints
of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution
declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
land…’

“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties
and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of
the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the
drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of
Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition –
to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER
an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions.
(See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that
document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the
Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government
and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate
combined.”

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive
Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO
agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No
question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions;
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time
that,

“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms
unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against
the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the
nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids,
or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of
the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without
its consent.”
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the
Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or
States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our
acquiescing to it.

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion: