Nightingale 0 #1 February 20, 2008 Article: "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" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973142/posts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #2 February 20, 2008 They have an excellent point. It's too bad they are abandoning it by threatening to secede. No one will take such a statement seriously, and the original issue will be lost in the nonsense that ensues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #3 February 20, 2008 QuoteThey have an excellent point. It's too bad they are abandoning it by threatening to secede. No one will take such a statement seriously, and the original issue will be lost in the nonsense that ensues. The hint at secession was in a letter to the Washington Post. It wasn't mentioned in the amicus brief actually filed with the court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #4 February 20, 2008 I guess those Montanans had better be prepared to pay more to run their state, then, since MT receives more federal monies than it sends to Washington in federal taxes. The rest of us can stop subsidizing Montana. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #5 February 20, 2008 I've often considered living there. To be free of the feds would be a great enticement to move there! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #6 February 20, 2008 They should ask the people of South Carolina how well secession worked when they tried it.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 February 20, 2008 QuoteThey have an excellent point. It's too bad they are abandoning it by threatening to secede. No one will take such a statement seriously, and the original issue will be lost in the nonsense that ensues. I don't see a threat in the text she posted. It merely states that such a decision would violate the contract, so it would be the US seceding rather than Montana. Given the court we have, seems unlikely that this issue will be tested. The collective right viewpoint is a combination of swiss cheese and bullshit. OTOH, they did endorse McCain-Feingold. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #8 February 20, 2008 >so it would be the US seceding rather than Montana. Use whatever semantics you like. No secession would take place, and anyone who discussed the possibility would be marginalized (rightly) as a nut. And that's not the way to deal with this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 February 20, 2008 Quote>so it would be the US seceding rather than Montana. Use whatever semantics you like. No secession would take place, and anyone who discussed the possibility would be marginalized (rightly) as a nut. And that's not the way to deal with this issue. Sorry, Bill, there is nothing nutty about expecting the government to abide by its compacts, and fighting them when they don't. More locally, there has been a problem with converting CA lands to national parks or reserves with the understanding that prior usage will be respected, and then seeing rangers try to shut down those historical uses (harvesting at Jade Cove, off lease dogs at Ocean Beach). But to repeat, this battle need not be fought until after the Supremes confirm Heller. Then I'm interested to see if some states or cities try to fight it when they're forced to give their citizens their 2nd Amendment rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #10 February 20, 2008 >there is nothing nutty about expecting the government to abide by its >compacts, and fighting them when they don't. Sorry. If Montana tries to secede it will not be allowed to. There's a precedent. Use whatever twisted logic you like; it will not happen, and anyone who advocates it happening will be treated like a nut (since it will indicate they are disconnected with reality.) It's like someone who claims that, legally, they don't have to pay income tax. Fine, he's got some sort of argument against taxation. If he tries to simply not pay any tax, he will not discover that the US government does not have the power to tax anyone as described in page 1198 of his manifesto. He will simply end up in jail, and will have to pay all that tax back with interest. If someone advocates the Fair Tax, then great. Publish articles about it, lobby congress for it, support candidates that espouse it. They will be listened to. If they just decide to stop paying taxes, they won't be, because people tend to not listen to criminals. Same applies here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 February 21, 2008 To reiterate, the text said nothing about a threat to secede, only Kris's headline. So cut out the strawman already. And your tax example is bullshit - had no relevance to the discussion. Those who try to claim taxes are illegal selectively misread documents. There's nothing ambiguous about the state compacts. So if the Supremes ruled that the second amendment somehow doesn't refer to the people and the Feds try to apply this to Montana, the first step would likely be to sue the feds and get a ruling on the contract. It could result that the state continues to have the right to guarantee its citizens right to bear arms, just as CA's constitution more clearly spells out the right to privacy. If the courts continue to hold the line by virtue of the ability to bully Montana, not sure what happens. It's not like the state has the people/resources to stand on its own. But this is a double hypothetical with little chance of occurring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #12 February 21, 2008 >And your tax example is bullshit - had no relevance to the discussion. You mean like: >there has been a problem with converting CA lands to national parks or >reserves . . . >So cut out the strawman already. You mean this one: >It's not like the state has the people/resources to stand on its own. If you agree that there is no opportunity for Montana to secede, then I agree - it could end up as a long legal battle if the feds go with the "collective right" argument. I doubt it will, though. Even if they go the collective-right avenue, there is absolutely nothing to say that Montana cannot set their own gun laws, and that would seem to end the problem (as you mentioned.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #13 February 21, 2008 Well we can't lose Montana as a state simply because 50 is too well rounded of a number. 49 would just sound incomplete. On the other hand, maybe it's time we let Puerto Rico join the club. I think we can all agree we all like Puerto Rico more than Montana. But then again, Puerto Ricans love handguns... They'll probably want a right to have any person bear arms. It's all so complicated! 108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #14 February 21, 2008 >But then again, Puerto Ricans love handguns... Oh, from the Monatanans I know, they'd give the Puerto Ricans a run for their money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itllclear 1 #15 February 21, 2008 Glad I have a passport so I can go to and get back from L.P."Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 February 21, 2008 otoh, Texas can stand alone, and they have long claimed the legal ability to secede if they so desired. Some of it is hot air, but there's no doubt that the state has the size to be its own country. And unlike 1860, today's country would not go to war to stop it. Given their love of guns and freedom, I think their reaction to a bad Heller decision would be more substantial than anything happening in Montana. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #17 February 21, 2008 >they have long claimed the legal ability to secede if they so desired. So did the South. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm951 0 #18 February 21, 2008 If you would take the time to read US history further back than the 1860s, you'll find that the New England states threatened to seceed long before South Carolina. That idea isn't limited to the CSA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #19 February 21, 2008 Quote They should ask the people of South Carolina how well secession worked when they tried it. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #20 February 21, 2008 >you'll find that the New England states threatened to seceed long before > South Carolina. Yep. And everyone who has threatened (or has tried) has been equally successful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 February 21, 2008 Quote>you'll find that the New England states threatened to seceed long before > South Carolina. Yep. And everyone who has threatened (or has tried) has been equally successful. Just as no woman or black has ever won the election for President, or even the nomination from one of the two parties. It's true until it's not. What happened in the 1860s has very limited relevance to now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #22 February 21, 2008 >What happened in the 1860s has very limited relevance to now. True. Our federal government is far stronger than it was in 1860, and we have since established the precedent that no state will be allowed to secede from the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 February 21, 2008 Quote>What happened in the 1860s has very limited relevance to now. True. Our federal government is far stronger than it was in 1860, and we have since established the precedent that no state will be allowed to secede from the US. Our willingness to have our brothers killing our brothers was destroyed by the Civil War. Stronger federal government, but a much more civilized one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #24 February 21, 2008 Speaking of secession, why did the western counties of Virginia who stayed loyal get relegated to the name 'West Virginia'? Surely there is more honor in being allowed to keep the original name. The western counties should have kept the name Virginia. When the eastern counties--which included the capital of the Confederacy, Richmond--begged to be let back in, it should have been under the name 'East Virginia'."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #25 February 21, 2008 QuoteBut then again, Puerto Ricans love handguns But how do they feel about sheep?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
