Skip to comments.DC v. Heller - Montana prepares to secede
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
That era began in 1865. Was Montana not paying attention?
Interesting! Very interesting!!
Well, Montana’s a really nice place to live...
But is it big enough?
This is different. It would allow, according to Texas v Lee, the consent of the States for a legal secession. We just considered it not 2 years ago for a 10 acre town stranded in Canada.
But this would be different at a fundamental level. The statehood contracts would at first, simply revert Montana to a Territory, eliminating all Federal tax revenues from the state.
Quite. Different. And quite legal, just, and persuasive.
It’s crossed my mind - more than once!
If Obama is elected, we all should secede.
I'm more of an Idaho guy myself...
Now it begins... I expect Idaho to follow Montana’s lead. Let us see who has a bigger set of brass nuts: the SCOTUS or Montana. I’ll put my money on Montana.
I'm moving to Montana soon. nevermind the dental floss...
I am in Colorado and have been looking at moving if the SC defiles the Bill of Rights.
Count on my family moving to Montana in that case!
The sky certainly is.
Whats a small “double-wide” on 100 acres going for these days in south central Montana?
Yeah, its grand, but quite expensive.
As a way of making somone wake the hell up and pay serious attention, this is a masterpiece.
I’m a southern boy by birth, but by God I would put up with the snow for this.
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah.
That should be big enough...
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.
Not really. The per capita income is one of the lowest in the Union. In constant competition with Mississippi for lowest, if my memory serves.
I took the train east2west Chicago to Seattle once, and it went through Montana.
It was beautiful. Just stunning. The only area I ever saw that I could say would be comparable was eastern Oregon, which is as close to paradise as a man could want.
The nearest Safeway is 100 miles away, but what the hey!!
Something to ponder...?
And the threat is legal (one could argue, is actually legally required), and it's actually beneficial for the State.
How’s the skiing up there?
I know a woman who is a teacher in the city of McCook Nebraska, and she is from Montana. Her advice to me was that her state is quite beautiful, but too costly to live in. I would like to think she is exaggerating, but not living there, I don’t know. I do have a desire to retire in Montana... visited there once... absolutely impressed with its beauty.
If the courts decide to change the meaning of the Constitution, many states besides Montana could sue for breach of contract.
That will separate the wheat from the chaff in a hurry. Pack up your guns boys, we’re heading West.
And if it is over 2/3rds of the States, a very unsettling option becomes available - a Constitutional Convention could easily then be called.
And that’s something for the very, very last resort in my book. Mainly because I don’t trust us to do one correctly unless there’s absolutely no other option.
But is it big enough?
bigger than Kosovo
Knowing Colorado’s constitution, This would be a breech here too. But commie bill ritter would lobby against it.
JOHNSON JOINS "HELLER" CHORUS
HELENASecretary of State Brad Johnson joined the many other Montanans who have weighed in on the DC v. Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A letter to the editor from Johnson appeared in todays Washington Times, urging the court to protect an individuals right to bear arms.
This is an important issue for Montanans, Johnson said. Many of Montanas elected officials spoke out on this issue; I am proud to be among them.
The letter can be found at this link.
Johnsons letter argued that Montanas agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montanas constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of any person to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montanas Compact with the United States.
Many other elected officials around Montana have concurred in a statement of the same argument, in a bipartisan effort to defend Montanans individual right to keep and bear arms. The list of officials, as well as their resolution, can be found at: http://www.progunleaders.org.
Governor: Brian Schweitzer (D)
Senior Senator: Max Baucus (D)
Junior Senator: Jon Tester (D)
Montana State House of Representatives: 1 vote GOP majority
Montana State Senate: Two vote Democrat majority.
Attorney General: Mike McGrath (D)
Yep, Montana is a really nice place to live. It's New Jersey on the Rockies.
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?
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.
My sources are pretty good.
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
It’s land locked so it’s a no brainer.
It is cheap to live here, but there isn't much money to be made either.
Montana....where the sky is big....and the sheep are nervous.