U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2008, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Missouri of course
407 posts, read 755,770 times
Reputation: 142

Advertisements

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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2008, 03:58 PM
 
Location: NM
1,209 posts, read 1,716,836 times
Reputation: 1115
A fantasy. No state will ever secede ever again, well that is unless they want the army to beat them into submission.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 04:29 PM
LM1
 
Location: NEFL/Chi, IL
833 posts, read 865,473 times
Reputation: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudcommando View Post
A fantasy. No state will ever secede ever again, well that is unless they want the army to beat them into submission.
Go to Montana and tell them you're taking away their guns.
They would vote for secession in a heartbeat and quite likely, a number of other Southern, Western and Midwestern states would join them.

You would basically have a few morons in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and California (combined with a bunch of crystal worshipers in certain urban centers) imposing their will on everyone else.
THAT is a Civil War that could turn out differently.

Likely to happen? No. Possible? Absolutely.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 05:06 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 15,618,412 times
Reputation: 3013
Montana lost a lot of its most fiery thinkers when they hauled Ted Kacyzinski (AND his cabin) away to California to stand trial...and then 'rousted" the "Freemen" from their compound. It's in real danger of just becoming a 'regular' state, with speed limits, gun laws, etc.,

If Montana "goes", we ALL lose something......it'll be just like a 'colder' version of Nebraska. HANG IN THERE, MONTANA !!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 06:54 PM
 
3,144 posts, read 7,922,966 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1 View Post
Go to Montana and tell them you're taking away their guns.
They would vote for secession in a heartbeat and quite likely, a number of other Southern, Western and Midwestern states would join them.

You would basically have a few morons in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and California (combined with a bunch of crystal worshipers in certain urban centers) imposing their will on everyone else.
THAT is a Civil War that could turn out differently.

Likely to happen? No. Possible? Absolutely.
+1

Oh and Montana would be able to hold their own ground several times better than... umm... lets say, Vermont? HAHA!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 07:12 PM
 
7,139 posts, read 13,834,429 times
Reputation: 2379
Montana is a great state. Hang onto your guns! I may just go with them as well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 07:13 PM
 
Location: California
412 posts, read 1,666,883 times
Reputation: 197
Montana will not be that large of a loss if it does leave any way, it has a low population and is pretty desolate. But it will never happen.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 07:22 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 15,618,412 times
Reputation: 3013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaipur View Post
Montana will not be that large of a loss if it does leave any way, it has a low population and is pretty desolate. But it will never happen.
You're correct. Many a state has a much "DENSER" population than Montana...(No matter HOW many actually live on each square mile)...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,890,433 times
Reputation: 967
Well, if they do hold out untill the government takes everyones guns, they can then go state by state and take more land for themselves. lol who would stop them?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 10:46 PM
 
Location: DFW, TX
2,935 posts, read 6,373,745 times
Reputation: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaipur View Post
Montana will not be that large of a loss if it does leave any way, it has a low population and is pretty desolate. But it will never happen.
You don't think if it left it wouldn't potentially be a strategic place for companies to relocate headquarters for a tax shelter? Think about how many insurance companies are in Bermuda, how many companies in general are in the Caymens, even just as a shell.

They could position themselves nicely to attract not only people who are tired of the government that has evolved, but companies looking to escape as well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top