Montana talks of leaving the Union over gun rights ! (unemployed, Congressmen, ethic)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf232

The last two moderate democrats in MT were forced out... by their own party.. Go figure. Bunch of nuts trying to force their views on MT once again... College kids usually fall for it, but Montana College kids seem to grow out of it..

As someone once put it....

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.

[chielgirl]

Is MT still part of the union? I thought you were leaving.
All talk and no action.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Is MT still part of the union? I thought you were leaving.
All talk and no action.

Trolling again huh? Typical dailykos person, no useful comments.

[rlchurch]

Hardly trolling when it's the title of the thread. Just pointing out that about 1/2 of Montana fits the "Big hat, no cattle" description for blowhards.

BTW to prove that we are tough guys too. At the house last night over dinner, we unanimously passed a "Home Sovereignty Resolution." I recommend everyone do it. We'll show Washington what we are made of.

[jimj]

[quote=rlchurch;8492257]Hardly trolling when it's the title of the thread.QUOTE]
So now you're "hardly trolling" and have to answer for others? Multi-talented aren't we????

[rlchurch]

[quote=jimj;8494077]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Hardly trolling when it's the title of the thread.

Originally Posted by jimj

So now you're "hardly trolling" and have to answer for others? Multi-talented aren't we????

Talented enough to fix your formatting error.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

Talented enough to fix your formatting error.

Being so talented, I see that you've also created an error all your own.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by EarthMother1951

HELENA—Secretary of State Brad Johnson joined the many other Montanans who have weighed in on the DC v. Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A letter to the editor from Johnson appeared in today’s Washington Times, urging the court to protect an individual’s right to bear arms.

“This is an important issue for Montanans,” Johnson said. “Many of Montana’s elected officials spoke out on this issue; I am proud to be among them.”

The letter can be found at this link.

Johnson’s letter argued that Montana’s agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montana’s constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of “any person” to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States.

Many other elected officials around Montana have concurred in a statement of the same argument, in a bipartisan effort to defend Montanans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. The list of officials, as well as their resolution, can be found at: http://www.progunleaders.org.




Letter from the above link:

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.


http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

I might have to consider moving to Montana ESPECIALLY since this was the state that told Washington to *&%^ off with the REAL ID.

Montana people congrats you have leaders in power who have a spine.

You know Washington D.C. is stepping over it's bounds when you have states threatening to withdraw from the Union. If they do I will move there the next day. That's a promise.

Supplemental:

Nullification Revisited by Robert Hawes

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Supplemental:

Nullification Revisited by Robert Hawes

Better yet, read the whole article at Campaign For Liberty -- Nullification Revisited | by Robert Hawes

Very interesting. Some notable fragments (emphasis mine):

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, Federalist 45

Most of us have been taught the idea that nullification, like secession, is unconstitutional; and further, that it is a discredited political doctrine. The federal government is absolutely supreme, thus the states are subordinate entities that must obey federal edicts -- this is the reigning dogma in American politics, and one of the pernicious ideas that the elites are laboring to teach to school children. If you ask for proof, the supporters of this dogma (generally federal officials and those who benefit from the favor of same - surprise, surprise) will usually throw a quote from Abe Lincoln at you and tell you that ideas like nullification and secession died at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. Why? Well, because that's the place where Lincoln and those who supported his authoritarian ideals finally wore down those who disagreed, and forced their surrender on the battlefield. Thus, nullification and secession are 'discredited' political doctrines largely for the same reason that your claim to your wallet can be 'discredited' by a mugger in an alley.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws. Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

The article expands on the above with numerous historical examples, and goes on to discuss how the original indepedent colonies functioned. Something that struck me as I read this part:

Are we sovereign states within the union, competent to decide our own internal affairs, or are we colonies of that union, thus not allowed any local scope of governance?? Methinks the growing power of the federal government has converted us from states, back into colonies.

It should be noted that Alberta's provincial premier has already told the Canadian federal government to take a flying leap several times, when some overreaching edict came down from Ottawa that was not in the best interests of Alberta's citizens or economy. So it's not like this principle is unprecedented in modern times, and remember that of all other nations, Canada's system and people most resembles our own.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Yesterday it was Texas, today it's Montana. Step back a moment; this says volumes about what the FedGov is trying to do and whether or not they are stepping over their bounds of authority.

Note the not so subtle anti-gun bias of the Associated Press reporter that
wrote the piece below.

Link: BillingsGazette.com :: Montana fires a warning shot over states' rights (http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/04/29/news/state/21-ramontana.txt - broken link)

By The Associated Press

HELENA - Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control - and
perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly
independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is
asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people
who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun
registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state
lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to
just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and
replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would
automatically trigger federal control.

Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana's sights: a legal showdown over how
far the federal government's regulatory authority extends.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of
the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the
bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal
government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate
commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can
so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states' rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the
right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of
the 1970s and '80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over
grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National
Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over
the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against
federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real
ID system.

Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in
Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a
simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They
plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF
threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal
dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

"I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going
to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state
Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine
efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

"Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush
Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going
that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense," said
Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence.

In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal
laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical
purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since
marijuana produced in California is essentially indistinguishable from pot
grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to
regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the
plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its
"Made in Montana"-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to
lie outside federal regulation.

Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun
freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of
the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as
livestock management and education.

"Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and
I'd like to support that," said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's
sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms.
It's about state rights."


Copyright © 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.