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
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yep. If North Dakota would pull with Montana, together we’d be the world’s third largest nuclear power.
They would, but CNN would never show it. They'd be off about what Lindsey Lohan, or Brittany, or one of those were up to. Important stuff, ya know...
If this happened, it would be an effortless Free State Project.
I think your contingency of pushing off shore is as good as anyone’s. However, my point in pinging you was to alert you that the ante was being raised in this case.
Frank Zappa was clearly ahead of his time on that one.
I’ve got 20 acres near Bozeman, gotta go there
The Heller case hinges on whether a state or D.C. can prohibit firearm ownership. In short, regulate it. If a state can prohibit ownership, then it can also protect ownership. So instead of seceding, why not just pass laws protecting handgun ownership or amend your state constitution to protect it? Duh!
In 1860, James Petigru said that South Carolina was too small to be a country, and too large to be an insane asylum. The same can probably be said of Montana.
You crack me up. What the hell was that song really about anyway? Or was that old hippy Frank Zappa just hopped up on something? Weird guy to say the least
I am certain that the deliberation that takes place on this case will not center around whether or not the DC ban is Constitutional, but how they can make a decision that is as confined as possible, and maintains the status-quo.
Just keep thinking that and just stay at home.
The natural order of government is to prohibit tools of freedom. Leaving the issue of prohibition/protection up to the legislature is to subject a natural right to the whims of those who would rather you not have it. The whole point of a “bill of rights” is to pointedly tell the government “hands off - it’s not yours to control in either direction”.
And seceding would solve this how?
Is the population of Montana large enough, to qualify as a state?
Guessing you don't read so good.
Guessing you read no farther in the thread before that response.
I’ve lived in Montana for 8 years now, and though I love the beauty of the place, there are things I miss about the desert of So Cal — except for the illeals and the liberals.