GUN MT Secy of State delivered a letter to the Washington Times about Heller

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by TL1000RSquid, Feb 20, 2008.

  1. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    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
     
  2. Carl Brutananadilewski

    Carl Brutananadilewski Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WHOREicon
    :noes:

    In reality I'm skeptical MT would do anything brash, but you never know with them :dunno:
     
  3. Dumbstixlars

    Dumbstixlars Ron Paul/AR-15/Glock/old car/Scooby/R/C croo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    8,375
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    ATX
    Oh man, I can't wait to see more stuff like this pop up as we closer to a ruling. :noes:
     
  4. [DWI]

    [DWI] Master of Nothing

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    21,936
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    WMD compound in Montana?
     
  5. cjj92yj

    cjj92yj Guest

    That's nuts! I really can't see the United States telling Montana good bye though. That would cause a legal fiasco of epic proportions.
     
  6. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I say hold out a little longer and hope for a warmer state to follow suit.
     
  7. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Yeah I don't see them holding out to long being landlocked once the US embargos them.
     
  8. cjj92yj

    cjj92yj Guest

    from the progunleaders website:

    :bowdown:
     
  9. hsmith

    hsmith OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Messages:
    124,624
    Likes Received:
    719
    Location:
    Your mother.
  10. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    In for moving to the country of Montana, the most heavily armed country in the world.
     
  11. ZCP M3

    ZCP M3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    +1 after instituting some SERIOUS global warming up there.
     
  12. JaimeZX

    JaimeZX Formerly of :Sep 2001: fame - Also: Sprout Crew OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,226
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Sweetness
     
  13. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus

    The comfort of having my guns is enough for me. :rofl:
     
  14. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats impressive and its nice to see an actual government taking a stance on the issue and not just the gun lobbies that can so often be accused of simply looking out for their best monetary interest.

    I've been reading a pdf on actual gun facts and reading some of the previous court cases and the PROPER interpretation of the second amendment, it seems highly doubtful that the court could find it as a collective right. But you never know.

    One of the issues is that the US Constitution was developed from many of the original state's constitutions, and in several of those it explicitly states the gun rights as individual rights. It also talks about the militia as any and all those that are not in some kind of organized military service. In other words, EVERYONE not in the military or national guard is the militia, though they do not have to be compelled to serve if they do not want to. However, being part of the militia, their right to bear arms is a given right. NOT given, by the government, but there BEFORE the government and the amendment is only there to say the government cant TAKE IT AWAY.

    Its interesting reading and pretty well laid out. It also states that "well regulated" had nothing to do with being organized in any way, but meant in its most basic meaning "behaved." In other words, the people that are behaved and responsible are what they consider "well regulated" which would only give them the right to take gun ownership away from those that were found to be criminal or traitorous.

    It will be a very interesting and touchy situation as there are going to be a lot of pissed off people no matter which way they go. Its just that if they side with the antis all the pissed off people will have guns. :big grin:
     
  15. Carl Brutananadilewski

    Carl Brutananadilewski Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WHOREicon
    :werd:

    If I had to choose, I'd rather piss off the metrosexual fags who have never touched a weapon in their lives rather than the side with all the guns and the will to use them :noes:
     
  16. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    can only embargo 3 sides, 4th side is on Canada's border.
    Be funny as shit if the ruling ends up negating a bunch of state's legal statehood contracts. In for a new country of former states!!

    They also don't mention but if they rule "the people" the 2nd doesn't mean individuals, then every other instance of "the people" won't mean individual right either.
    You want to talk about a backfire of beyond epic proportions in the making right there.



    1st...
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    4th..
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    9th...
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    10th...
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    17th...
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2008
  17. Carl Brutananadilewski

    Carl Brutananadilewski Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WHOREicon
    I wonder if a ruling that has these consequences will make the sheeple wake up to what is going on by the socialists and globalists :x:

    If so, it might mean revolution v2.0 :hs:
     
  18. thedude11

    thedude11 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    16,165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATX
  19. bigboostdsm

    bigboostdsm New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Rocky Top, TN
    Any chance you could host that or post up a link? I'd love to take a look at it :bigthumb:
     
  20. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I'd assume Canada would side with the U.S. I doubt many countries would recognize them as an independent country, maybe Serbia and Russia to spite the US over kosovo. On the otherhand dont we still have minuteman sites there? Montanastan could be a nuclear power :eek3:
     
  21. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its the PDF found on this site. http://www.gunfacts.info/

    They have a whole writeup on the upcoming case as well if you want to get into that. But the basic gun facts one has a ton of pages of myths the libs use and the facts to dispute them and a section on the 2nd as well.
     
  22. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,943
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    http://www.pinkpistols.org/

    be careful who you bash :nono:
     
  23. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wasn't it Montana a few years back that was planning to disregard NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 as illegal?

    Wish someplace like Florida or Texas had balls that big.
     
  24. Carl Brutananadilewski

    Carl Brutananadilewski Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WHOREicon
    :coolugh:

    Those gays have a weapon, therefore they are not "metrosexual fags who have never touched a weapon" :hsugh:
     
  25. [DWI]

    [DWI] Master of Nothing

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    21,936
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine
    http://progunleaders.org/resolution.html

    AN EXTRA-SESSION RESOLUTION OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS OF THE 60TH MONTANA LEGISLATURE AND OTHER ELECTED MONTANA OFFICIALS URGING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT ANY "COLLECTIVE RIGHTS" HOLDING IN D.C. V. HELLER WILL VIOLATE MONTANA'S COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE CONTRACT BY WHICH MONTANA ENTERED THE UNION IN 1889.

    WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court (Court) has agreed to review and decide the case of D.C. v. Heller appealed to it from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals;

    WHEREAS, the Court has agreed to consider the question, "Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes";

    WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;

    WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

    WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;

    WHEREAS, the wording of the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms, now Article II, Section 12, exist today in form and wording identical to that agreed upon by the citizens of Montana and the United States in 1889 and unchanged since then; and

    WHEREAS, a contract, compact or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time entered into.

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

    1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and

    2. That the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms are both statements securing a preexisting right from government interference, and do not confer any boon of government upon the people; and

    3. The level of review for the Montana right to bear arms and for the Second Amendment are specified within those declared rights -- "shall not be infringed" for the Second Amendment, and "shall not be called in question" for the Montana right to bear arms;

    4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller;

    5. The undersigned incorporate by reference here a more thorough, attached explanation of the contract argument advanced; and

    6. The undersigned legislators appreciate the attention of the Court to this argument on behalf of Montana and its citizens.

    Supporting argument

    Elected officials in concurrence:

    Current list
     

Share This Page