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

Also from the article:

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.


It's an interesting argument.
1 posted on 02/21/2008 10:19:07 AM PST by dbehsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: dbehsman
Welcome to America's version of Facism. Where up is down, wrong is right, and Guns have a mind of their own...

The Fed can go down in flames never to return...

2 posted on 02/21/2008 10:21:04 AM PST by Chucktallica101 (Cheer up! All the people you hate will eventually die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman

I agree............


3 posted on 02/21/2008 10:21:17 AM PST by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman
Right on, Montana!

And let us not forget:

Since “The People” in the First Amendment means The People,
and “the People” in the Fourth Amendment means The People,
and “the People” in the Ninth Amendment means The People,
and “the People” in the Tenth Amendment means The People,
there can be no rational claim that “the People” in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).

4 posted on 02/21/2008 10:23:48 AM PST by Digital Sniper (Hello, "Undocumented Immigrant." I'm an "Undocumented Border Patrol Agent.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman
Yes, very interesting. The contract for statehood could also be viewed as a treaty and thus, be the “law of the land”. This line of thought in my mind presents an novel approach to attacking restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.
8 posted on 02/21/2008 10:33:38 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman

When it comes down to: There is a bad guy with a gun, everyone wishes a good guy with a gun will save them!

If the bad guy is going to shoot you, you wish you had a gun to defend yourself or someone to shoot the bad guy before he shoots you!

When the Police are not there, and some nut case is running around killing people, and they are pointing a gun at you...and its supposed to be a Gun Free Zone, you wish someone would shoot the bad guy.


13 posted on 02/21/2008 11:04:11 AM PST by Halo-JM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman

Can you say “Montana Land Rush of 2008”??


14 posted on 02/21/2008 11:17:17 AM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman

See, how good the 2nd is at smoking out crapheads and traitors? Keep it!!!


15 posted on 02/21/2008 11:26:13 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dbehsman; All

My right to own a gun is not granted to me by the government. It was endowed to me by God and the Second just confirms it.

Why are these people so slow?


20 posted on 02/21/2008 12:57:34 PM PST by wastedyears (This is my BOOMSTICK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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