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
Gonna be a dentist or something?
I did a real estate search there about a year or so ago. The property seemed as bit expensive.
For some reason I was thinking the lyrics was about moving to montana and becoming a dentist.
Gonna be a dental floss tycoon
My 3 favorites are Sidney, Bozeman & Missoula (in that order, and for various reasons) ... and I was NOT born there, nor have I lived there.
...next addition to my mp3 player.
thanks for reminding me of that song!
It would be even worse. Montana as a Territory would be subject to Federal govern ship and the use of Federal troops to control the territory. It could instantly be put under martial law (not likely but not out of the legal realm)All residents of the territory could claim sovereign citizenship but the corporation of the US would âownâ the land (and BTW the water under the land). It would be a real popcorn event to see that play out. However, the Supremes will not go there since it opens to many other cans of worms. There also id the “equal footing doctrine” to deal with. Texas could have similar claims.
Helena, Bozeman, Billings, Butte, Mizzoula.
I’ve been through Montana several times now (having moved to Seattle from the East and out to Iowa from Seattle, including a road trip.)
In a way, I was surprised by the towns there. A lot bigger than I would have guessed, though not huge and with the parks there are little way stations of civilization throughout much of Montana.
And absolutely beautiful scenery. Must be absolute hell in winter, though, if Iowa is any indication.
Well, our Founding Fathers apparently thought it was a good idea.
Hey! There’s another out!
If thirty-three states call for a Convention, they could scrap the federal government and start over from scratch.
Which states signed on to the pro-Heller brief?
Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
I county thirty.
Soon as I get me a grub-stake, I'm gonna get me a dennil floss ranch.
Did you nap as you drove through Idaho? The inland NW is my old stomping grounds and a place to which I will return. Eastern Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Western Montana are probably the prettiest places in the U. S. In terms of natural beauty, however, nothing compares to British Columbia, IMO.
“That era began in 1865. Was Montana not paying attention?”
You’re gonna get em’ all riled up saying that. It seems that I read a book once that started with Montana seceding followed quickly by several other mountain states.
“I’m a southern boy by birth, but by God I would put up with the snow for this.”
If Tennessee left I’d leave Colorado in a heartbeat to defend my home.
“Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah.
That should be big enough...”
Maybe we could break off Northern Colorado too.
Thank you Captain Buzzkill...
“Maybe we could break off Northern Colorado too.”
I didn’t think that there was much of Colorado left that hadn’t been sucked dry, paved over or turned into a half-a$$ed theme park.
...just like what the tourists and their d*** lawyers are trying to do to Montana now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.