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

To: MrB
The “mood” of half the country is such that we’re “on the edge”. It’s a powder keg.

THIS "WILL" GET UGLY........Texas will not submit...period.

17 posted on 12/27/2012 8:09:24 AM PST by cbkaty (Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy---W Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: cbkaty

If this outrageous so-called law passes, the Texas secession movement should spread like a wildfire on the prairie.


93 posted on 12/27/2012 10:11:51 AM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (November 6, 2012.....A day that will live in infamy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: cbkaty

my kid is stationed at Dyess AFB in Abilene. I love going there to visit. Maybe I will bring my hardware and join. The United State of friggen Texas!!!


210 posted on 12/27/2012 4:07:20 PM PST by lookout88 (.combat officer's dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: cbkaty
THIS "WILL" GET UGLY........Texas will not submit...period.

Nor Montana. Nor, likely, my home state of Wyoming.

But Montana's Secretary of State Brad Johnson said it very clearly a couple of years back, and there's quite a push to have him run for the state governor's office...or presidency, if it comes to that.

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.

*more*

339 posted on 12/31/2012 8:05:59 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | 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