Montana talks of leaving the Union over gun rights ! (state, federal, handguns)

[RangerDuke08]

Originally Posted by moduckdoc

Montana's National Guard takes an oath of allegiance to MT first. All of the Nukes there (and there are alot) would be taken over by MT pretty quickly.

Yup quite a few nukes in Warren AFB, WY no doubt would join MT.

Liberals in Boulder for instance would move back to CA.

I'm all for it, when do we vote?

In the end when people are given real control of their lives and government is limited, there are no bounds to be what can be accomplished.

That's whats great about Montana because of it's attitude it has been able to maintain it's right-leaning libertarian philosophy, possibly the closest to what our founding fathers imagined. Though I would never live in MT, people there seem to want you to get in and get out, but I am nonetheless proud of Montanans sticking it up to the feds.

[Philosophizer]

I've been an advocate for Texas Secession for a while now and if Montana was to go, I'd head up there in a heartbeat to fight for their cause. As a patriot and a staunch defender of individual liberty, I'd die in the name of freedom from the slave driving federal bureaucracy. And for all you authoritian, left wing fascists, I think our men and women US military would join with the gun rights people over the federal government in a hearbeat. Afterall, their oath is to defend the constitution from all threats, domestic and foreign. And we'd kick the crap out you confiscating leftists that have never even fired a gun. So come and take it. Ole betsie is locked and loaded and I'd love to put an exit hole in you the size of a softball.

we are so molested on a daily basis by our own governments, that I can see why people hunker down with weapons and shoot federal authorities that don't approve of their non-conformist lifestyles.

we are on the road to left wing fascism. mark my words folks. there will be taxation on our carbon emissions, world aid, united nations membership, universal health care, and windfall profits to go along with what the taxes we already have in place (income, death (what kind of nation do we live in where it costs money to die?), social security, medicare, medicaid, TANF, corporate welfare, illegal immigrant education and healthcare, inflation (disasterous monetary policy), uneconomical govt mandates (ethanol), double taxation of corporations, various govt regulations on private property rights (essentially a tax passed onto the consumer), and a public education system that is failing the future generations of this country).

Who will join me in protest? Where is our generation's Sons of Liberty? Where is the outcry? Where is the outrage? We need patriots now more than ever. If we don't fight now, they will make slaves of each and everyone of us. Government expansion always leads to a loss of individual freedom. The very men that founded this country were willing to die for something greater than themselves. Liberty for men to govern themselves and not by kings, aristocrats, bureaucrats, special interest groups, or lobbyists. What will it take? It's only a matter of time until they come for the very weapons we have to defend ourselves against the tyrannical fascist left.

We are headed for a depression of biblical proportions and I want nothing to do with it. For the most part, the government has created it by choking us unjust taxation. Now granted, people living outside their means has also contributed a great deal to our current shape, but when people have a security blanket (govt food stamps, social security, welfare, and medicaid) there's no reason for people to be prudent with their money.

collectivism and individual freedoms are not compatable. I suggest you take a good hard look at the ideals this nation was founded upon and where we are at now. We've moved so far away, I can't even recognize America anymore. In fact, I wouldn't dare defile America's name by giving it title to this quasi socialist bureaucracy controlled nation.
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]

[texdav]

Get real;it isn't a matter of votinfg. Most peole that post these thing sare just wandering and not serious.That is what we have courts for.

[RangerDuke08]

Originally Posted by texdav

Get real;it isn't a matter of votinfg. Most peole that post these thing sare just wandering and not serious.That is what we have courts for.

Yup it's a daydream and most likely will not come true, however that's the problem with the direction of our nation today, you have everything settled by judges, a handful of bald men wearing robes that dictate the lives of 300 million Americans. Our founding father Thomas Jefferson was never fond of this as well refer to:

""The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

I can give you more, but Jefferson would be proud of Montana.

[tristyjoy]

Just want to point out that not only do we (as I am a native Montanan) have a thriving economy and beautiful country, we have friendly and caring people. Population is NOT a indicator of worth or quality, let me tell you--we also have more guns per-capita than most states in the entire U.S.
Also, this would not be a secession, but an annulment of our contract with the U.S. when we joined 1889, which gave us the right to leave, (not succeed) if our gun rights were infringed at ALL. We would be perfectly within our rights as a part of the contract with the U.S. to leave--no fighting, no armies--we would just become the Republic of Montana...

[tristyjoy]

Texian Patriot: "we are on the road to left wing fascism. mark my words folks. there will be taxation on our carbon emissions, world aid, united nations membership, universal health care, and windfall profits to go along with what the taxes we already have in place (income, death (what kind of nation do we live in where it costs money to die?), social security, medicare, medicaid, TANF, corporate welfare, illegal immigrant education and healthcare, inflation (disasterous monetary policy), uneconomical govt mandates (ethanol), double taxation of corporations, various govt regulations on private property rights (essentially a tax passed onto the consumer), and a public education system that is failing the future generations of this country)."

I tend to agree with TexianPatriot, although a little extreme. Believe me, this drift toward socialism scares me--soon we won't be in control of anything except our potty breaks...
I have friends who tell me that socialism is the way to go, cuz it provides for the people--but you know what you get when you go that direction? How about Nazi germany or the soviet union--not to pleasent if you ask me.
What everyone needs to ask themselves is if THEY want to be able to decide what is best for them or if the government should be allowed to make the majority of decisions for us. I for one consider myself a competent adult, able to decide what is and isn't best for me...

[big daryle]

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.

Goodbye Montana, dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!!!!

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Spudcommando

A fantasy. No state will ever secede ever again, well that is unless they want the army to beat them into submission.

In the case of Montana, they are a "liability" state (they get more tax money than they pay) so if they left, it would be OK. But I do agree with them in that we all need to protect the right to bear arms.

[KevK]

"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.

The Constitution does not specify that the only state "militia" is the National Guard. The "militia" of a state may be the police, rangers or even private citizens who, being trained in the use of a firearm and the laws of defense, arrest and detainment, are issued permits to carry a firearm and may, in times of emergency, be called upon to assist. Also many states have unpaid militias that would qualify as a "militia" inclusing here in Georgia Georgia State Defense Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Framers who wrote that did not specify that only official military members were "militia" and the could not have meant that in the days they lived in when a "militia" meant the local Sheriff or Marshall called out for a posse to go after the bad guys and citizens got their guns and mounted up.

[domergurl]

If they secede will they change the name of their state/country to:

Guntana
Mon-ratatat-na
Uzitana
Glocktana

oh the possibilities are endless.

Too bad for them Canada has tougher gun laws than ours, they'll be on their own.