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
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.
Bump
Cheers!
As a Territory aren’t the Federal laws the trump?
The States of 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, Virgina, Washinton, West Virginia, & Wyoming filed pro-gun right Amicae Curie, but didn’t hit on this at the time.
I’ve got to go with Brab on this one. Don’t mess with Montana.
Yeah, but they are all east of the Rockies.
That's for sure. What the country will find interesting if this happens is that the Feds would invade a state to keep if from leaving but do nothing about a the very visible Mexican invasion of the Southwest and the Mexican government's attempt to grab American states through demographics. People are going to notice. They're noticing now!
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).
Generally, unless they have a corpus of law passed by the Territorial Legislature and approved by the Congress (which they still have). So, in particular, no, not really. The statehood process has several stages. They’d just be back one second prior to statehood. But they’d be exempt from Federal Income Tax.
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.