Posted on 08/27/2009 12:34:31 AM PDT by Ron C.
'This is an issue where the federal government has no business'
Montana statehouse
Supporters of a first-of-a-kind law in Montana that declared weapons or ammunition made and kept in the state were exempt from federal rules are preparing for a court challenge to the federal government's insistence it will regulate those items.
The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have formed a strategic alliance with plans to litigate over the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.
The bill was passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You're dreaming. It'll never happen. Didn't work out too well in the 1860s what makes you think it will now? How many folks are going to actually take up arms against a modern army for a cause they know they can't win? Plus, how many liberals or RINOS exist at all levels of government in those states who can and will throw a huge monkey wrench into the deliberations for such a move?
Well come on over, Texas has plenty of room.
Terlingua is the home of the CASI World Chili Cookoff each year. From what I’ve read, it’s a real wild circus for a few days.
Yep I use the 2006 winner's recipe. Tough to find anyone that does a chili grind in Indpls. Chili in the midwest is awful, and the wife definitely prefers when I eat the Texas variety!
If you read on in the thread, I think you’ll agree that what you state is the position advocated.
It’s called “nullification”. Declare federal encroachment null and void by refusing to obey the encroachment.
If you’ll note, the Montana gun and ammo court case is what is happening right now.
What the thread poster goes on to say is that, IN ADDITION, a certain number of states will form a seperate union.
I don’t know if they will, or if they as individual states will refuse federal encroachment.
Either way, the end game isn’t to file losing court cases and meekly accept losing results.
This case would be a first, tiny baby step toward reasserting states rights under the Constitution.
It’s an action we can actually see happening now, as opposed to griping and mere talk.
This is headed for something far, far more, or it is of small use.
Hopefully, the federal government would be smart enough not to push this to a full blown revolution. However, never underestimate the arrogance of federal officials, especially the Liberal Messiah. The USAF should let Him know that it wouldn't support any order to fire upon fellow Americans.
It’s a decent overview, though I find the “20 states” part to be over optimistic.
Now I get all my spices from Mild Bill's and the country store around the corner will do chili grind. I was going to enter my first competition this year but had to work that day. I now have the stove, the iron kettle, and all the various implements of taste bud destruction, such as the Cuminator (formerly a coffee grinder) that runs off my truck battery. I still need a 10' tent shelter and a banner proclaiming my chili to be worthy. I'll get there.
One thing I hope you realize about leftist elitists -
they cannot stomach the idea of people living outside of their control
and will insist that the fedgov use force to bring the rebels back under control or kill them.
That’s interesting. The Fed have argued for years about the 2nd amendment and keeping of arms being corporate and referring to the national guard under control of the states. Now that a state is asserting the right over intrastate guns and ammo, I wonder what the feds will argue?
They could argue with the commerce clause but the 2nd should trump that if viewed from a states right perspective and previous court cases. Being that the SCOTUS has already ruled to an individual right to bear arms, or more importantly that the right DOES NOT refer to the federal govt, the Feds can’t argue that that they have ultimate control over the 2nd.
Unless the SCOTUS weasels on the Commerce Clause v. the 2nd, the Feds seem a little boxed in.
It won’t happen because I doubt most soldiers would go along. If they did they’d also lose by attrition fast. Spread out our army across the nation and they’d be a drop in the bucket, outnumbered 10,000 to 1. Something like Somalia.
And if they did large scale bombing? Well go ahead, bomb your tax base. Less dollars in, how will you pay for your army?
Let’s not forget Republican governors and their National Guards. Not to mention withholding tax payments.
America will splinter before it becomes a tyrannical dictatorship.
Obama will destroy the USA like Mugabe destroyed Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Congress is totally corrupt along with the judiciary. We went to SCOTUS and other courts and their response is “no standing.”
The Constitution provides the solution under the 10th and others.
BRAVO!! I agree, there won’t be a civil war. States just need to do exactly as you said, just start ignoring all these stupid Federal mandates, states need to collect their own portion of the federal income tax and only send to the fed govt taxes to cover expenses for laws and organizations (national military, interstate highways, etc.) that are actually constitutionally appropriate.
At some point abolish the Federal income tax but at least first things first. I think the states could go a long way toward taking our country back. Let California & Massachusetts stay ultra liberal if they want! Just don’t drag the rest of the country down with them!
I would love to see conservative states “just say no” to all the idiotic Federal mandates regarding public education. Let each state decide for themselves how they want to educate their kids with no federal intervention in public schools or universities. If states held back a large percentage of the money they are sending to Washington, people would have so much more spending money that they could use for their own kids for private education, college education, etc. Businesses would thrive and they would be awash in funds that could be donated to solid universities that are doing great engineering, research, etc.
Let states decide if they want to opt out of Medicare, Medicaid, Social security, if they want to keep it, or if they want to scale it back or increase it. Let each state chart its own course and we could have 50 different experiments in free market capitalism, socialism, or some combination. People and businesses would be free to move to the areas that appealed to them.
George Wallace may have thought exactly the same thing and the guard came in and showed him something different.
Kill us? - Perhaps not, but put us down and control us?
I believe 100% that this would be exactly what they would do.
Without being willing to use force, we would lose everything.
The states would have to plan for armed resistance, and that is illegal itself.
The powers that be a legal creatures and I can't see them having the temerity to do any of that.
The military will likely have to choose a side, but won't do so until it must. There's also the possibility that the military would splinter.
I don't hope that. I truly believe that the differences can't be reconciled. For any of us to maintain our freedom, it will have to be by separating from the federal union.
Don't kid yourself. The left is going for all the marbles this time around. You can expect draconian currency regulations soon. And they will come overnight. You will not be able to move money out of this country, except at perhaps great expense. Nixon devalued the dollar in 1971. I GUARANTEE that is coming down the pike, along with wage and price controls.
You want freedom? It's going to require parting ways with the current version of the USA. Bet on it. The real question is, who really has the onions to do it. Resolutions are a very long way from secession.
“If the federal government gets it’s way, and the supreme court sided with them the Constitution would be completely irrelevant.”
I’m sure now, given that SCOTUS has a “wise Latina women who brings her rich diversity of experience” to the Court, will be able to sway those other legal-knuckle draggers (like Scalia), to see the inherent wisdom of FedGov dominating the States. //not
Let’s get our terminology right.
What we are talking about is NOT a “revolution.”
It is a RESTORATION.
We intend to DEFEND AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The un-Constitutional revolution going on right now is being run from the White House.
It can be argued that the 14th Amendment (adopted after Mr. Lincoln's War) prohibits State secession...
I believe you are referring to Sections 3 & 4 thereof. Of course, those provisions only apply to those who lose an "insurrection or rebellion".
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.