Posted on 02/19/2008 7:35:11 PM PST by djf
Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision.
Second Amendment an individual right
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.
BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller
You might find *this link* to the Montana Secretary of State's website to be of interest.
The first one that came to my mind was the old mining camp town of Bannack, where the citizens were so annoyed with the criminal exploits of their crooked sheriff that they formed a Committee of Vigilence and hanged Sheriff Plummer and several of his henchmen.
Divide and Coolidge, once stops on the 38-mile-long Montana Southern Railroad also come to mind, though now under the population level of 300 required for town charters under state law.
“Don’t forget that similar rumblings have been heard in Alberta and Saskatchewan....”
They don’t feel that their interests are being represented I suppose. Maybe one of our Canadian members could explain further.
I might be from the northeast but I’m not a gun grabbing Liberal.
Depending on how the State's books look sometimes this is actually a benefit :)
No worries! But if/when things get really bad out your way, do know there's a place in the west where yoiu're welcome. Just don't wait too long to notice how bad things have gotten.
I smell a "what-if" novel...like an alternative history, but set in a fictional future.
Cheers!
That might not cause the problems for Montana that it would for some other states. Montana has a lot of open country with few paved roads and other infastructure that would depend on federal money. The school system will have to cut back- but in the long run going back to the basic education without oversight of the feds might well improve the schools. Montana could increase it’s state tax in order to collect the money it’s residents would ordinarily pay to the feds, and use that money to make up for the lack of federal funding.
I think Montana would do just fine on it’s own.
You better hurry, if the decision causes Montana to secede the price will go up considerably.
My oldest daughter’s boyfriend just bought a cattle ranch there a few months ago- so we will be having a shotgun wedding in our family if the ruling goes against individual gun rights.
Montana is a good place to be cold, but at least I’m friends with a good drummer there...
Myself I’m not much worried about, my only problems would be:
Transporting gear
Convincing family and friends to high tail it over there.
Transporting gear
I've got a truck yoiu can use. Shucks, most everyone in Wyoming and Montana has a truck you can use.
Convincing family and friends to high tail it over there.
There's no sales tax in Montana, either.
I would assume that for that one, the groom won’t be in danger of getting shot.
I’m otherwise a lazy SOB, but I’m still the type that would prefer to do things myself until I’m certain I need help.
I would guess the best way to transport is to make a few trips on the road.
Only if he doesn't want to marry & let our entire family live on his Montana ranch...
Gotcha
Damn slow as FR’s getting — it’s losing my attention!
Just an FYI — if you plug the Lat/Lon into http://maps.google.com/ you get a better and closed view of that location — newer too.
A Chinese curse I believe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.