MONTANA may join KOSOVO as NEW INDEPENDENT STATE over DC vs HELLER?

imported post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage

Secretary 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

Click to expand...

More information:

http://progunleaders.org/

imported post

The 'briefs' page's linked URL are unusable. For example file:///D:/Winwrd6/A-MSSA/Issues/Heller/Website/Brief%20DC%20in%20re%20Heller.pdf

In http://progunleaders.org/argument.html, 'Compact with the United States,' first paragraph, "president Harrison[sic]" should be capitalized, President Harrison. ETA

As a Southeron by the Grace of God and by my choice, I wish you success in which ever path is taken. Another 500,000 dead will be a small price to restore the Union. Remember Republican President Lincoln's role in destroying the Union, he will have a contemporary analogue.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention Of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
(Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston 1850)







Edit:
spelling

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

The 'briefs' page's linked URL are unusable. For example file:///D:/Winwrd6/A-MSSA/Issues/Heller/Website/Brief%20DC%20in%20re%20Heller.pdf

Click to expand...

Read the all the briefs here http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

imported post

Thank you.

I have read many at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=heller and prefer this source. All have been downloaded to my machine for the long winter nights when my satellite connection is down due to weather.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Be careful Montana. We know what the Federal Government did to Native Americansover treaty disputes.

And don't forget the civil war.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Be careful Montana. We know what the Federal Government did to Native Americansover treaty disputes.

And don't forget the civil war.

Click to expand...

That is why this is potentially so huge. My understanding is that Montana is not claiming a right of seccession (something many believe to be an implicit right but which the War of Northern Aggression decided on the battlefield is not), but rather that they would, as a function of law, no longer have an obligation to statehood due to what essentially is a material breach of contract by the US. Imagine half the other 44 states with explicit individual RKBA clauses in their constitutions taking the same position. It is huge and scary. I really do not want to live through a modern War of Liberals Aggression and while refreshing the liberty tree with blood and all is great rhetoric, it would be unimaginably awful to live through. Hopefully the US legislators are wise enough to listen to their constituents and not pass any legislation that will put this over the edge regardless of SCOTUS decision and, if the SCOTUS goes against freedom, that they will pass laws to mitigate the damage that will cause.

imported post

What does it say of an elected official, a legislator that is afraid to face his armed electorate and constituency? Try it, succeSS will be the exception.

The explicit Right of Secession is still the first paragraph of the DoI:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Click to expand...

As to another half-million war dead; consider the relative dilution of our culture by that and by 13 Million illegals and disaffected.

Better now while my grip is firm and my blood hot. Better me than my daughter and her palid ilk.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Better now while my grip is firm and my blood hot. Better me than my daughter and her palid ilk.

Click to expand...

I like this Doug. If this is a quote, could you share its source? If this is one of your literary creations, my compliments on its excellent wording.

imported post

Mine, thank you. And you are welcome to it - them.

I've just come from Evening Lenten Services. Apropos; saying, speaking good deep thoughts aloud or clearly in one's mind - as prayer- makes those words and thoughts more concrete. Hence the value of ritual and training. And the damage done by venal thoughts.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

imported post

I love Montana!!

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Be careful Montana. We know what the Federal Government did to Native Americansover treaty disputes.

And don't forget the civil war.

Click to expand...

I'd pack my bags and guns and move to Montana to fight the good fight.

imported post

Everyone just move up to Alaska, we'll make a fortress nation. We have the oil, minerals, technology. Oh, and the huge gun-person ratio. Let's see the liberals try to get their guns through the Canadian border. "We have all of the proper paper work, let us through!" "Eh? No you don't, you see this is -Canada- ,a sovereign state. Piss off, lady."

imported post

Schofield wrote:

Everyone just move up to Alaska, we'll make a fortress nation. We have the oil, minerals, technology. Oh, and the huge gun-person ratio. Let's see the liberals try to get their guns through the Canadian border. "We have all of the proper paper work, let us through!" "Eh? No you don't, you see this is -Canada- ,a sovereign state. Piss off, lady."

Click to expand...

Can't we all just band with Alaskans and go take over some place warmer?

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

I love Montana!!

Click to expand...

Me too!

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Schofield wrote:

Everyone just move up to Alaska, we'll make a fortress nation. We have the oil, minerals, technology. Oh, and the huge gun-person ratio. Let's see the liberals try to get their guns through the Canadian border. "We have all of the proper paper work, let us through!" "Eh? No you don't, you see this is -Canada- ,a sovereign state. Piss off, lady."

Click to expand...

Can't we all just band with Alaskans and go take over some place warmer?

Click to expand...

Just use HAARP to make everything warmer, lol.

imported post

This topic and the links posted herin are frightening to me. I have been noticing a trend on this and other boards. It seems that the number of instances someone mentions armed insurection vs the government is rising, as is the number of people who support or agree with the it or the idea that the time is coming.

While i would pack my whole family and move to montana to insure its freedom and fight for the cuase of freedom, I thuroughly hate the idea of a forth coming war. I would much prefere this to be settle with out violence and blood shed. I know of people IRL that seem to think that "something is coming" but wont elaborate on what it is.

The very idea we even have to think about this is scary, that it is even being discussed is scary. It should scare the hell out of everyone here that the thought of possible revolution/civil war is even in anyones mind.

To make matters scarier, most of our military is over seas. lets say this civil war happens. While were busy fighting eachother, Russia and or China could easily take that opportunity to invade and destroy us.

I think that instead of talking about possible state sucsessions due to contract violations and the inevitable civil war that will follow, not be disscussed. Instead we should focus on ways to prevent this. Maybe someone who is in the nra, should wright them and ask them to organize a massive rally out side scotus. Massive on the scale of the MIllion Man March. We need to fight this the legal way, not by spreading fear and revolutionist ideas around when there is no present need for any.

Dont misconstru my meanings here. I will and would fight for freedom. I just dont think now is the time to go around talking about joining a revolution/civilwar when there is so much that can be done before that ever happens.

imported post

Mordis wrote:

Maybe someone who is in the nra, should wright them and ask them to organize a massive rally out side scotus. Massive on the scale of the MIllion Man March.

Click to expand...

We could call it the Gazillion Gun Gathering :celebrate

LONG LIVE THE GGG :celebrate

imported post

Anyone Know what other states are under a similar contract?

imported post

"I would much prefere this to be settle with out violence and blood shed."

Me, too. Perhaps today we will learn whether any peaceable means remains:

This Friday, Feb. 22nd:
SCOTUS To Reconsider Landmark WTP v. US

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-02-17.htm