Montana Will Secede If Supreme Court Fucks 2nd Amendment
So Montana entered the Union with a contract based on a strong premise that the second amendment meant the right “of any person” to keep and bear arms, that very wording, as I understand it, is in that contract. I also understand a lot of other states have similar contracts.
The following is a letter to The Washington Times from Brad Johnson, Montana’s Secretary of State:
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.
Nods to Sid.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Fuck that woman is hot.
Montana rocks.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:52 pmI think I should start looking into property in Montana. I bet they will honor my civil liberties more than some crazy clowns in Washington.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:57 pmI am loving that picture!
As for this story. how crazy would that be, they screw over our 2nd amendment rights and then alot of states start seceding. And they should. a contract is a contract my friends
February 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pmKansas trusts the ‘the people’ a.k.a. individual citizen to pack heat
‘The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but the armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.’
This is going to be an interesting ruling and will open a can of worms if ‘The People’ are ruled against.
Just in case….I orderd a M4 last week!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:01 pmTexas wouldn’t be far behind Montana if they resend the 2nd!
Brian
February 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pmI was mad as hell when the anti-gun bastards used the Tech & NIU shootings to call for more gun control. There’ll be hell to pay if they try to take away my beloved M1 Garand!
On a side note, any historical firearm people here know anyone that can research the history of a serial number on a Garand for a good price? I know mine was made at the Springfield Armory in November 1943, and saw action (being loaned out) with the Greeks when they had to beat back the Commies in the late 1940s. I’d be very interested to know what, if any campaigns it saw in WW2.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pmI doubt New york has such an article inits constitution, and if it did with all the libtards there I doubt secession would be considered so does anyone one exactly which states have these laws so I can choose one for residency?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm@TJ:
If I remember correctly, New York reserved the right to leave the Union for any reason. Still, look at what happened last time states tried to secede.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:40 pmI’m all for gun rights, but this preemptive saber-rattling BS needs to stop. There isn’t even a suspicion of how the court is going to rule, so why not save the outrage for when something actually happens? And one can make a sound argument that the states, as sovereign polities under our bi-sovereign system, possess the right to nullify any federal law that oversteps the powers delegated to the national government. In other words, there are options in between rolling over and this neo-Confederate wet dream.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm‘Still, look at what happened last time states tried to secede.’
CHANGE…HOPE….YES WE CAN
Sometimes saber rattling is good thing. You lay all the cards out ahead of time and expedite the process to avoid a long drawn out debate.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pmGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MONTANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUCKIN’ A!!!!
BALLS MUTHAFUCKA’S!!!!!!!!
BRAD JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pmI say for the new flag put the ‘Benington’ flag up…
Look it up in wikipedia. It emblazons ‘76′ in the blue field. That’s what I call a message….
February 27th, 2008 at 3:59 pmIf I remember correctly, New York reserved the right to leave the Union for any reason. Still, look at what happened last time states tried to secede.
The issue with that is that the states ratified the Constitution, establishing it as the supreme law of the land. Depending on how one swings in constitutional interpretation, the various resolutions and state constitutional amendments hold no binding power.
Anyway, the Claremont Institute has an interesting rebuttal to the various latter day secessionists here, for anyone who’s interested.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pmInteresting article David, but interpretations aside, breaking a contract is breaking a contract. That is absolute.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:05 pmSometimes saber rattling is good thing. You lay all the cards out ahead of time and expedite the process to avoid a long drawn out debate.
And sometimes you overplay your hand and make yourself look like a fool in the process. Threatening to do something when nothing has happened is the type of scenario where those chances are good. If there were some ominous stirrings from the halls of power, then they could lay claim to some justification, but using one’s elected office to make a convincing impersonation of Ron Paul is irresponsible.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pmInteresting article David, but interpretations aside, breaking a contract is breaking a contract. That is absolute.
Except that no contract has been broken and everyone’s acting like it has. Might I suggest that we channel a little more Washington and a little less Jefferson?
February 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pmUnderstood David, it hasn’t happened. But it could. Should secession happen before-hand? No. But after? If the Supreme Court decision effectively ends that right?
Yes.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pmIt is nothing more than Montana reminding the SC that this is what we both agreed too in writting, and if you allow they the other party to void themselves from the contract then the we the people of Montana have the right to go our serparate way.
That isn’t a threat, it is stating the facts as Montana see it.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pm@ Paslode…
Thank you sir.
Brad Johnson, 2012, for President.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pmWe are a bit serious about our guns here in Montana… but more over… our rights!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pmBy the way, we’re not the only ones with thoughts of secession…
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/magazine.php?category=letters
read:
Time for the West to split
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
In the last federal election, the majority of citizens of western Canada supported Conservative candidates for Member of Parliament. As leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper was called to form the government. The support by the citizens was based on anticipated changes with real Senate reform and the end of government spending to force a minority language of French on the majority of English-speaking Canadians high on the agenda.
To date, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has not moved forward on any real Senate reform, to give all Canadians an elected, equal and
effective Senate. Prime Minister’s Conservative government has continued or even increased the push for a minority language of French on a majority of
English-speaking Canadians, at huge financial cost to governments and business.
The majority of Western Canadians are faced with a real dilemma for the next federal election. A vote for a Conservative candidate, in our parliamentary
system would indicate approval of Harper’s actions, or lack of action, to date. A vote for either a Liberal or New Democratic candidate indicates our approval of polices that result in the people working for and at the call of the government as well as continuation of official bilingualism.
The continuation of an unwanted official bilingualism policy and an appointed Senate are high on the list of reasons the majority of Western Canadians are looking for solutions to this dilemma. A growing number of Western Canadians believe the best solution is the separation of Western Canada and formation of a new country with one official language of English and a system of government that is accountable to the people.
Ken Kellington
Moose Jaw
***
This isn’t about a ‘neo-Confederate’ wet dream. We, the People, want to and will be heard, one way or another.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pmThe other half of it, is that We the People sit in the bleachers and spectate from the ‘Crows Nest’ as our mis-guided Senators and Congressman mis-represent themselves as representatives of the ‘Common Man’, looking out for our ‘Best Interests’….Like I need, let alone trust Harry Reid watching my Six!
There isn’t a godamn one of them that truely represents me or anyone I know.
So what Montana is saying ‘WHOA’ there boy, you had better take off the blinders and broaden your horizons a bit…..this is We the People in action.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pmIt is nothing more than Montana reminding the SC that this is what we both agreed too in writhing, and if you allow they the other party to void themselves from the contract then the we the people of Montana have the right to go our separate way.
That isn’t a threat, it is stating the facts as Montana see it.
Reminding someone of the facts is fine, but why not take the time to remind the court what the Second Amendment actually means in its precise language? Why not mount a historical and scholarly defense of the Standard Model of interpretation as an individual right to bear arms? How many Americans, those in Montana or otherwise, actually no what the Second Amendment says? This is an opportunity to exhort the Justices on their legal duty and to educate the public on what the issue is. Acting prudently, it might be an opportunity to wrest the microphone from the anti-gun nuts and get two words edge-wise into this debate. Instead, Mr. Johnson has done an ample job of framing himself as a belligerent, which just gives fodder to the opposition.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:48 pm__
David,
You may not agree with the manner in which Montana made its voice heard, but it is a voice non the less and a means of communication. Not much different than a stern conversation with your father reminding you of the potential repercussions of your actions.
Why not take the time to discuss it? 1. It has already been discussed. 2. That requires Elitest Attourneys who of the mindset that ‘The Law’ is a living, breathing being that they can bend and twist as they see fit.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pmMounting a historical and scholarly defense is a very good idea, especially if this wasn’t clear. But this is clear.
If I don’t pay my mortgage, I’m breaking my contract.
Section 12. Right to bear arms. THE RIGHT OF ANY PERSON TO KEEP OR BEAR ARMS (emphasis mine) in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
This is the Montana State Constitution as approved by the people of Montana and the United States.
It is clear. Especially to the People of Montana. Steve_Montana can attest.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:18 pm@ trustme1013:
Just be careful where you buy that property. Missoula, and Helena, and probably several other larger cities in Montana, are full of liberals.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pmThe tree of Liberty must occasionally be sprinkled with the blood of patriots. (Somthing like that) Is this soon to come?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pmT. Jefferson.
Hope not Marc. I hope the next President is able to lead by the Constitution. To the letter. No more interpretation.
To the letter.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pmBash, your wife looks great after having all those kids!
February 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pmTHE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! PERIOD
What part of that is not clear!
February 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pmI know one thing…..for as long as I was in school, there were no if’s, and’s or but’s about what the 2nd Admendment and the Constiutional Rights stated.
The people have the Constitutional right to own and bear arms.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:56 pmHow many people can you fit in Montana?
February 27th, 2008 at 6:56 pm“I’m all for gun rights, but but but but but but but but….ad nauseum.
Isn’t that how they all begin to chip away at rights they don’t agree with?
February 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Gary
David Marcoe as far as the saber rattling goes, just what good will it do, to do it after the decision is made? But bigger than this is once again the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch is out to make law, again. Who’s going to straighten this country out?
February 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pmThat depends on what side of the divide your talking about,
the east side has all the room in the world.
4th largest state behind California and I swear they are trying to take over here west of the divide. We have bumper stickers that state DON”T CALIFORNICATE MONTANA but they still come. Like steve says guns are big here everyone hunts.
Down to business
We have a Constitution nobody cares about. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms against our government but aren’t the troops sworn to shoot those people down if they are called domestic enemies?
The Oath Specifics:
Domestic Enemies
“When the Vice President of the United Stats and all members of the military take their oaths of office or enlistment, they are required to swear to Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (The president, curiously, merely swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Nothing in his oath refers to domestic enemies.
Question:
Who are the domestic enemies? They are enemies of the Constitution. They are not identified in the Founding Documents, but the Declaration of Independence gives the people of the United States wide powers to, at any time, declare an existing Government to be null and void, and to replace it with a new Government of their choosing. It therefore allows that if the entire Government may be repudiated by the people, the people may also identify those enemies of the Constitution that may exist at any given time. The powers of the people are those of a Sovereign. There is no greater power in the United States. The uniqueness of the Declaration of Independence lies in the fact that it delegates to the people complete power over everything in the land. There is no higher power, not the President, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, not any branch of Government or individual of the Government. The Founding fathers made each citizen of the United States a Sovereign in his own right.”
http://home.satx.rr.com/cdma/domesticenemies.htm
February 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I
February 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I love montana! If shit goes down I’m moving there!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
bd Amen. I could not agree more.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Paslode
February 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pmperfect, now all we need is an event that goes too far (enough of this death by a thousand little cuts stuff) and we can roll in and take her back.
Montana has another saying “not from here” - - - like the girl
February 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pmin the picture
The Bill of Rights (yup, the first 10 Amendments) are expressly for defining the limited rights of the Federal Government and highlightling the rights of INDIVIDUALS. What part of the Bill of Rights don’t these so called scholars get?
February 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pmI’m feeling a bit like William Wallace tonight.
Doesn’t neccessarily require weapons to accomplish, just masses.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pmDon’t forget who the real enemy is……… They would be lapping up all this internal division folks.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:53 pmI’m in the communist state of California so I know first hand the very real agenda of our leftist elite: “death by a thousand cuts”. They bleed us slowly–slowly taking away our rights, little step by little step. Little steps don’t create the clarity or the sense of alarm that a decision to limit guns to state militia would have. Government knows better than to take on gun rights for the individual head on. Something that outrageous would have a massive uprising of the people. Perhaps I’m cynical, but I don’t think the Supreme Court decision will add clarity. Hope I’m wrong.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:22 amgonna get some zircon encrusted tweezers and be moving to Montana soon..
Zappa isn’t dead, he just moved to Montana
February 28th, 2008 at 4:31 amYea, the original constitution died with the south.
In the beginning of this great country, and the union of the colonies/states, they had an agreement, that if they didn’t like where the federal govt was going, they could back out.
Even now the Virginia Bill of Rights states that they can remove themselves from the federal union any time. This is what the Confederate State of America was about in the war of northern aggression. Too bad Abe wasn’t real concerned about Constitutions nor any Bill of Rights.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:41 amGo Montana.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pmI’ve heard something about “be careful about where you buy that property” in regards to Missoula and Helena being full of “Liberals.”
A Montana liberal is by and large a different variety than a New York liberal. Montana is one of a few states where there is a such thing as a “gun toting liberal.” Gun control isn’t a very popular issue in very many corners here. Even the radical left (MT has an associated history with the IWW going back a century) are advocates of the individual right to keep and bear arms here.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm