Montana to Secede? (Missoula: schools, colleges, companies)

[MamaBee]

Montana's Secretary of State, Brad Johnson, writes letter to editor of Washington Times:

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...

Letters to the Editor*-*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

I'm curious as to what you guys in Montana think about this. Is this a true sentiment of the tone in Montana? Would this really be carried out?

[talibkwali]

Wow. I am so proud of this state in certain areas including the 2nd amendment. (Less proud of it for....

The Missoula Independent Online - The cluck-ups

All that happened last year. Yeah Montanans feel strongly about this!

I vote we succeed. We have all the nukes.

[Timberwolf232]

Personally I believe the 2'nd amendment was written as, and was intended to be an individual right.

I also think it's pretty improbable for any state to Secede during this day and age, but if the DC Vs. Heller case does break the Montana State Contract you can be certain that there will be a bunch of busy lawyers for the next 25 years. ;-)

Even our governor (who happens to be a democrat) said "not now, not ever" to the idea of supporting the federal ID system.

I'd be really surprised to find anyone that lives in Montana, excluding a wacko or two in college towns, or the wierdos that chain themselves to the fences during the bison harvest, that would support something as drastic as taking away people's 2'nd amendment rights.

I hope the feds don't attempt to take away the people's right to bear arms anywhere, not just in DC. If they tried, it would be a sad, sad day with a lot of needless violence I'm afraid.

[ElkHunter]

This will never happen. There is only one state that has it in their charter of statehood, that they are allowed to succeed from the Union. And it is not Montana.

So the politicians can raise a stink, threaten all they want, makes good publicity, but it can't and won't happen.

[talibkwali]

Actually, rewriting the constitution from scratch might be good. And we have done that already.

Ha! I just realized i typed succeed. Nice.

[Gunluvver2]

In some areas of the country the right of individuals to keep and bear arms has already been taken away. If the SCOTUS says that there is NO individual right to have weapons the question will be: How many of the estimated 100 million+ citizens who now own firearms will be willing to surrender them peaceably to a government agency?

In urban areas of states like MA, NY, NJ, CA, OR, WA, IL, D.C. and a few others their citizens have already shown that they will not resist any efforts by the government to ban ownership of firearms. This will be a gradual disarming of the citizens but it has already started (1968 GCA plus the Sullivan Law in the early 1900's) and it will accelerate rapidly. Hopefully the SCOTUS will show wisdom similar to that of the Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights in the 1780's. If that type of wisdom does not prevail in this case, the USA will be a failed experiment in Democracy within just a few years.
GL2

[MamaBee]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

In some areas of the country the right of individuals to keep and bear arms has already been taken away. If the SCOTUS says that there is NO individual right to have weapons the question will be: How many of the estimated 100 million+ citizens who now own firearms will be willing to surrender them peaceably to a government agency?

In urban areas of states like MA, NY, NJ, CA, OR, WA, IL, D.C. and a few others their citizens have already shown that they will not resist any efforts by the government to ban ownership of firearms. This will be a gradual disarming of the citizens but it has already started (1968 GCA plus the Sullivan Law in the early 1900's) and it will accelerate rapidly. Hopefully the SCOTUS will show wisdom similar to that of the Founding Fathers who adopted the Bill of Rights in the 1780's. If that type of wisdom does not prevail in this case, the USA will be a failed experiment in Democracy within just a few years.
GL2

I agree, my husband and I are watching this case closely. We live in NJ and are horrified to see the daily erosion of our rights; including gun rights. We're seriously thinking about moving to greener pastures in places like New Hampshire, Montana, or Tennessee.

We're a young couple and don't have any firearms...yet. My husband applied to obtain the license...now he has to get fingerprinted (the prints will be kept on file by the state police and FBI) but the police department hasn't gotten back to him about when he can come down...seems like delay tactics to me. All of our family is against it, they think we're nuts for wanting a gun. Here in this liberal state a gun is something to be feared.

I was so excited to read the letter from Montana's secretary of state, I thought "Finally a state may have the guts to stand up and take its rights back".

[Timberwolf232]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

This will never happen. There is only one state that has it in their charter of statehood, that they are allowed to succeed from the Union. And it is not Montana.

So the politicians can raise a stink, threaten all they want, makes good publicity, but it can't and won't happen.

What state is it? Texas??

Didn't West Virginia secede from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the US right before the civil war? (Try saying that five times fast..) :-)

I couldn't see a state seceding even if they did have it in their charter during this day and age. Too much reliance on federal money, and too much national infrastructure.

It is kind of scary to see government trying to get support to ban guns from law abiding people. What is the logic behind that? To give criminals an edge? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[ElkHunter]

Yes Timberwolf,

The one and only state that can succeed at this time, is Texas.

And you are absolutely correct. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that any state could succeed. The only ones that could benefit would be Alaska or Hawaii. Because they are pretty much independent now, except for federal funds.

No state would do it if they could. Like you mentioned, there is way too much infrastructure that they depend on. Federal monies keeping schools open, teachers paid, extra police, Colleges kept open, College grants, Tax reliefs for new companies coming on line, and lots and lots of other things.

Dare program, welfare, medicare, medicade, WIC,. Now people are going to argue that Medicade and wic and welfare are state run. Yup. State run with Federal money.

So I personally don't believe, any state can afford to opt out.

[MamaBee]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Yes Timberwolf,

The one and only state that can succeed at this time, is Texas.

And you are absolutely correct. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that any state could succeed. The only ones that could benefit would be Alaska or Hawaii. Because they are pretty much independent now, except for federal funds.

No state would do it if they could. Like you mentioned, there is way too much infrastructure that they depend on. Federal monies keeping schools open, teachers paid, extra police, Colleges kept open, College grants, Tax reliefs for new companies coming on line, and lots and lots of other things.

Dare program, welfare, medicare, medicade, WIC,. Now people are going to argue that Medicade and wic and welfare are state run. Yup. State run with Federal money.

So I personally don't believe, any state can afford to opt out.

It is also in New Hampshire's state constitution that they reserve the right to secede. New Hampshire also has one of the lowest levels of Federal dependence.