Alaska has voted (or tried to anyway), twice, to secede from the USofA.
Some points
The Alaskan Independence Party is the state's third largest political party with about 17,798 registered members, elections records show. It was formed in 1970 to advocate that Alaska secede from the union. A lot of folks were pissed off over the FedGov denial of an Trans-Alaska Oil pipeline at the time - sound familiar? In this case, the Teamsters saved the day.
From Canada
Alaska - Some Canadians and Alaskans have discussed the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomy plan allowing for a U.S. sphere of influence. This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association, Quebec Autonomism).
The issue has been discussed on various fora, such as that for the Alaska Independence Party forum, which claims Alaska as the "lost province". However, no formal movement in favor of this proposal exists, nor does any political party currently advocate it.
The reality of course is not as fun
From http://www.alaskabar.org/ada.CFM?ID=6428&subpage=1
Recently, in Kohlhaas v. State, our supreme court addressed whether Alaskans would ever get the chance to vote on making this dream a reality. The short answer was: "No." The long answer from the court (and I paraphrase) was: "Are you crazy? Do any of you people remember the Civil War and the 630,000 casualties? Much as we, as members of the court, would like sovereignty, we have seen the 'shock and awe' of the Federal military, and we can hear the buzz of a drone over the court right now as it warms up a Hellfire missile, and we'd rather not give the federal government any reason to test the missile resistance of the courthouse roof."
Well, the court did not say that, but that is what the court meant. Here is what it really said. In Kohlhaas, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the invalidation of a ballot initiative submitted by Mr. Kohlhaas to the Lieutenant Governor. The initiative itself indisputably met all procedural requirements to be placed on the ballot, including obtaining the necessary signatures. (Getting people to sign a piece of paper is not a problem. Getting those same people to throw a Molotov cocktail at an M-1 Abrams tank; whole different story).
I moved to Montana for just this reason. Just keep the Rainbow Libs, and RINOs out. Sadly the libs have discovered central Montana. They think Flathead Lake is wonderful. The locals are not so impressed.
Semper Paratus!
Gunner
I guess I’ll enjoy living in Montana...
Interesting. Have they filed and amicus brief? It could make a difference. If they haven’t it’s all talk.
Just get in touch with the EU. They’’ll give you some pointers.
Woo hoo!!
Big City
Merle Haggard
I’m tired of this dirty old city.
Entirely too much work and never enough play.
And I’m tired of these dirty old sidewalks.
Think I’ll walk off my steady job today.
Turn me loose, set me free, somewhere in the middle of Montanna.
And gimme all I got comin’ to me,
And keep your retirement and your so called social security.
Big City turn me loose and set me free.
Been working everyday since I was twenty.
Haven’t got a thing to show for anything I’ve done.
There’s folks who never work and they’ve got plenty.
Think it’s time some guys like me had some fun.
Turn me loose, set me free, somewhere in the middle of Montanna.
And gimme all I got comin’ to me,
And keep your retirement and your so called social security.
Big City turn me loose and set me free.
They don't care if it is an individual right or not so long as they can continue to enacted "reasonable restriction"
The Supremes are gonna toss us a bone and conservatives are gonna get excited, but the real outcome is that reasonable restriction will still be inplace.
The sheep will be placated and that's the end of that.
Montana has finally figured out a way to become densely populated?
bttt
I’ll help build “THE FENCE”. Let me know when it warms up a bit.
THANKS.
Fascinating.
I hope they make a LOT more noise about this.
John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he referenced the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the 14th A. was ratified. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
So bear in mind that what DC v Heller is essentially testing is how corrupt the Supreme Court is.
Rather than seceding, if the Court rules the wrong way and says that the 2nd is a “collective” right, then the legislature there should declare each person between the ages of 16 and 80 to be members of the state militia, subject to annual call-up. They should be required to show up bearing their own personal M4, M16, M14 or M249 (all full auto weapons). When the governor signs the bill, you now would have a few hundred thousand people eligible to purchase brand-new full autos.
It’s definitely an option. Depending on the outcome, I may move there too.
Nothing succeeds like secession....
When I first saw this a little while ago I got distraught.
The term 'National Guard' was first adopted by a New York militia unit in 1825 to honor the Marquis de Lafayette, hero of the American Revolution and former commander of the Guarde Nationale de Paris during the French Revolution.And although individual states' militias may have been transformed into more independent, self-perpetuating organizations receiving state funding that were later known as the "National Guard", it doesn't follow that that is what the Constitution is referring to as the "militia" because the Constitution was written before any such later developments.
If this happened, it would be an effortless Free State Project.