Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC v. Heller - Montana prepares to secede
email

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; bradjohnson; heller; mt2008; mtsos; parker; rkba; secede; secession; secondamendment; separatism; statesecession; statesrights; union
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-218 next last
To: djf

Do you happen to know if Montana Officials have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court stating this, or otherwise affirming the RKBA in support of the 2nd Amendment?


41 posted on 02/19/2008 8:06:13 PM PST by Enterprise ((Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

Well, they weaseled out of the gold and silver clause by holding that the Federal Government wasn’t a State, so it didn’t apply.

Now they’re trying to go in the other direction, by passing unconstitutional laws in DC.

I’ve heard stories about people in DC getting arrested simply for handing out folders on the sidewalk. They are pretty restrictive there.


42 posted on 02/19/2008 8:06:39 PM PST by djf (I think McCain deserves a chance. After all, he is on R side!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah. That should be big enough... ;-)

Push the boundaries a little bit west to the Cascade mountain crest in both WA and OR. There are plenty of "wet side" northwesterners ready to move 150 miles to the east already. The Cascade range makes for a better boundary to guard anyway. :)
43 posted on 02/19/2008 8:07:57 PM PST by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

My sources are pretty good.


44 posted on 02/19/2008 8:08:12 PM PST by djf (I think McCain deserves a chance. After all, he is on R side!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: djf

And Montana will do... WHAT? Secede? Hahahahaha! This is the sort of idiocy that the same people who bought into the “sovreign citizen” and admiralty courts scam will believe. Montana is going to do whatever the USSC tells it to do. No more. No less. The Federal cops will ensure that they do. The States were enslaved to the federal beast over 135 years ago


45 posted on 02/19/2008 8:09:01 PM PST by Seruzawa (Atilla the hun... he was a liberal, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

It’s land locked so it’s a no brainer.


46 posted on 02/19/2008 8:10:56 PM PST by ScratInTheHat (Don't like my immigration stance? I'm dyslexic. PC keeps sounding like BS to me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; RTO
Not really. The per capita income is one of the lowest in the Union.

It is cheap to live here, but there isn't much money to be made either.

47 posted on 02/19/2008 8:11:25 PM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Seajay

Montana....where the sky is big....and the sheep are nervous.


48 posted on 02/19/2008 8:11:54 PM PST by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: djf; Jeff Head; Sir Gawain; Joe Brower; DaveLoneRanger

Bump


49 posted on 02/19/2008 8:13:06 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Just curious. Does Montana have any ICBM bases?

Cheers!

50 posted on 02/19/2008 8:13:47 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
But is it big enough?

Sure it is, there wouldn't exactly be a stampede of nanny staters running away from uncle sam's teat. What's one more stolen previously constitutionally protected right if you're getting cheap lettuce and social security?

Maybe one in 40 would actually leave for freer pastures.
51 posted on 02/19/2008 8:15:13 PM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If people do relocate, it may be prudent to settle WEST of the missile fields.


52 posted on 02/19/2008 8:16:11 PM PST by Momaw Nadon ("...with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus

As a Territory aren’t the Federal laws the trump?


53 posted on 02/19/2008 8:17:10 PM PST by ScratInTheHat (Don't like my immigration stance? I'm dyslexic. PC keeps sounding like BS to me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

The States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virgina, Washinton, West Virginia, & Wyoming filed pro-gun right Amicae Curie, but didn’t hit on this at the time.


54 posted on 02/19/2008 8:17:25 PM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: djf

I’ve got to go with Brab on this one. Don’t mess with Montana.


55 posted on 02/19/2008 8:17:54 PM PST by claudiustg (We're Whiggin' out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Just curious. Does Montana have any ICBM bases?

Yeah, but they are all east of the Rockies.

56 posted on 02/19/2008 8:18:48 PM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: djf
Funny, there was no National Guard when the Second Amendment was written. Militias were armed citizens, not organized until needed.
57 posted on 02/19/2008 8:19:38 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Guns don't kill people, gun free zones kill people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FR Class of 1998
"I think the feds would use force if necessary to stop a secession. They haven’t cared about law during my lifetime, that’s for sure.

That's for sure. What the country will find interesting if this happens is that the Feds would invade a state to keep if from leaving but do nothing about a the very visible Mexican invasion of the Southwest and the Mexican government's attempt to grab American states through demographics. People are going to notice. They're noticing now!

58 posted on 02/19/2008 8:19:57 PM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: djf
LOL

Alaska has voted (or tried to anyway), twice, to secede from the USofA.

Some points

The Alaskan Independence Party is the state's third largest political party with about 17,798 registered members, elections records show. It was formed in 1970 to advocate that Alaska secede from the union. A lot of folks were pissed off over the FedGov denial of an Trans-Alaska Oil pipeline at the time - sound familiar? In this case, the Teamsters saved the day.

From Canada
Alaska - Some Canadians and Alaskans have discussed the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomy plan allowing for a U.S. sphere of influence. This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association, Quebec Autonomism).

The issue has been discussed on various fora, such as that for the Alaska Independence Party forum, which claims Alaska as the "lost province". However, no formal movement in favor of this proposal exists, nor does any political party currently advocate it.

The reality of course is not as fun
From http://www.alaskabar.org/ada.CFM?ID=6428&subpage=1

Recently, in Kohlhaas v. State, our supreme court addressed whether Alaskans would ever get the chance to vote on making this dream a reality. The short answer was: "No." The long answer from the court (and I paraphrase) was: "Are you crazy? Do any of you people remember the Civil War and the 630,000 casualties? Much as we, as members of the court, would like sovereignty, we have seen the 'shock and awe' of the Federal military, and we can hear the buzz of a drone over the court right now as it warms up a Hellfire missile, and we'd rather not give the federal government any reason to test the missile resistance of the courthouse roof."

Well, the court did not say that, but that is what the court meant. Here is what it really said. In Kohlhaas, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the invalidation of a ballot initiative submitted by Mr. Kohlhaas to the Lieutenant Governor. The initiative itself indisputably met all procedural requirements to be placed on the ballot, including obtaining the necessary signatures. (Getting people to sign a piece of paper is not a problem. Getting those same people to throw a Molotov cocktail at an M-1 Abrams tank; whole different story).

59 posted on 02/19/2008 8:20:16 PM PST by ASOC (Tagline free for months and still going (Oh, wait........))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScratInTheHat

Generally, unless they have a corpus of law passed by the Territorial Legislature and approved by the Congress (which they still have). So, in particular, no, not really. The statehood process has several stages. They’d just be back one second prior to statehood. But they’d be exempt from Federal Income Tax.


60 posted on 02/19/2008 8:21:06 PM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-218 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson