'Any person' has right to gun, state says

WorldNetDaily ^ | 2-20-08 | WorldNetDaily

[dbehsman]

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.

That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:

"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

[dbehsman]

Also from the article:

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.

It's an interesting argument.

[Chucktallica101]

Welcome to America's version of Facism. Where up is down, wrong is right, and Guns have a mind of their own...

The Fed can go down in flames never to return...

[Red Badger]

I agree............

[Digital Sniper]

Right on, Montana!

And let us not forget:

Since “The People” in the First Amendment means The People,
and “the People” in the Fourth Amendment means The People,
and “the People” in the Ninth Amendment means The People,
and “the People” in the Tenth Amendment means The People,
there can be no rational claim that “the People” in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).

[Digital Sniper]

Sadly, the Republican Party's own Juan McAmnesty is no friend to the Second Amendment, so we can expect no help from him on this issue that's so vital to freedom. (See Gun Owners of America on McCain's Record.)

[Little Bill]

The right to keep and bear arms, proceeds the Constitution. The early settlers had fire arms and sharp edged instruments to protect their communities and themselves.

[Halo-JM]

Right ON, Right ON!

[taxcontrol]

Yes, very interesting. The contract for statehood could also be viewed as a treaty and thus, be the “law of the land”. This line of thought in my mind presents an novel approach to attacking restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

[dashing doofus]

Exactly. Furthermore, since the Constitution, in Section 8, already empowers the Congress with the powers for “organizing, arming, and discipling the Milia...” it would be ridiculous to think that the Second Amendment, adopted several years later, simply REPEATED the right of only a militia to bear arms.

No, “The right of the people” is what was clearly intended.

The antis are losing the legal battle, and the battle of common sense, when arguing that 2A is a collective right.

So, they are now attempting to regulate 2A into nothingness, with their proposals to tax ammo, microstamp cartridges, etc.

Eternal vigilance against the lefties is necessary. Thank goodness for GOA and NRA.

[javachip]

McCain has helped on this issue. He's one of the co-signers on a congressional amicus brief arguing strongly for an individual rights interpretation in the Heller case. This is the brief that VP Cheney cosigned in his capacity as President of the Senate.

I know McCain has often been on the wrong side of gun rights, but, credit where credit's due, he's on the right side this time. Note: Neither Clinton or Obama signed on - despite both claiming to "support the 2nd amendment, but..."

[Digital Sniper]

Thank you for that information. I am gratified that McCain has chosen wisely on this matter. Thanks again.

[dashing doofus]

I believe McCain has a C+ rating from the NRA. Both Obama and Clinton received well deserved Fs.

I’m voting for the C+.

[Halo-JM]

When it comes down to: There is a bad guy with a gun, everyone wishes a good guy with a gun will save them!

If the bad guy is going to shoot you, you wish you had a gun to defend yourself or someone to shoot the bad guy before he shoots you!

When the Police are not there, and some nut case is running around killing people, and they are pointing a gun at you...and its supposed to be a Gun Free Zone, you wish someone would shoot the bad guy.

[bboop]

Can you say “Montana Land Rush of 2008”??

[Waco]

See, how good the 2nd is at smoking out crapheads and traitors? Keep it!!!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

“Note: Neither Clinton or Obama signed on -”

I wonder how many secret service people carrying firearms are around them every day to protect them....

[laotzu]

See, how good the 2nd is at smoking out crapheads and traitors?

Amen....and, well said!

Let's make the citizens of Montana most honarary Texans, and throw them a BBQ.
(then take Vermont..we'll make a weekend of it)

[logic]

“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!!”

[Halo-JM]

That is soooooo right! LOL

[wastedyears]

My right to own a gun is not granted to me by the government. It was endowed to me by God and the Second just confirms it.

Why are these people so slow?

[wastedyears]

Let’s haul arse

[MrB]

It IS a novel approach, and perfectly legal, according to the founding documents.

However, the Supreme Court long ago took away any right a state has to remain sovereign in the presence of a federal law.

Maybe, however, this suit will expose this atrocity and set up the landslide that we need to get our country back to its founding ideals.