Montana may leave the Union over gun rights !
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.
It doesn't matter what the SC Rules.
It doesn't matter what the SC rules. The constitution grants no rights. it only enumerates SOME rights. The Government has no lawful authority to rule on or oppress any natural rights. Those rights existed before the constitution was penned. They cannot take something away that they never gave in the first place.
Everyone now must make a decision on if they will fight for their natural rights or let some government entity oppress them. It's that simple. Make your decision now don't wait until it's too late.
--------------------------------------------------------
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. Samuel Adams
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
I might move there regardless..
Even if this did happen the government would get all of us freedom loving people to move there then they would bomb it and get rid of us all and take the state back.....
Let us pray...
...that the remaining 16 anti-REAL ID states will band behind Montana on this issue as well. I realize they all cannot separate from the union legally, but they can sure as hell support Montana who legally can...depending on the ruling.
Next false flag site
If they try and leave, it will be the next inside job false flag site.
I would join as well. I
I would join as well. I wonder what would the Federal government do? Wold they just withdraw the military bases? I think not? Would probably pull a Lincoln! The Lacota is not a bad idea either, I think I will read in to it more.
Going to Montana soon...
Going to be a Ron Paul gold tycoon...
For Liberty!
For Liberty!
GO GO Montana!!!!!!!!!
Hold those bastards to their agreement.
http://www.dailypaul.com/152976/diebold-vs-paper-ballots
http://www.ncel.w4sp.com/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.hulu.com/hacking-democracy
The Right is Self Evident
As the Declaration states: "All Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." No legitimate can take away the right of self defense.
We don't need the Court to explain what is written in plain English. The Court has a history of misrepresenting the Constitution. Examples of this phenomenon are the Court's rewriting of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights places NO restriction on the individual. All encumberances are on the state. Any individual may pray anytime, and anywhere he or she choses. The state is powerless to prevent them. This includes public schools, football games and the halls of Congress. At the same time, the state may not compel a person to pray. The Congress is prohibited from establishing an official church.
Another example is the Court's "discovery" of a woman's right to kill her unborn child. Interestingly, the Court extrapolates this "right" as part of the inplied right of privacy. I agree with the idea of privacy. Government has no right to snooping into our personal affairs. This means that the income tax (originally prohibited by the Constitution) violates the idea of privacy. Government has no right to our personal financial information.
Americans need to read the Constitution for themselves. We cannot depend on our Criminal Class to interpret if for us.
Heller will most likely
Be decided in favor of the ban for one very important reason.
The District of Columbia is not one of the several States. Congress has EXCLUSIVE legislative authority within the district. Which essentially means, within the territorial confines of the District, the Constitution is not operable, unless Congress says it is.
There are MOUNTAINS of court cases on this. Go do your own homework if you don't believe it. This is part of the problem with the D.C. Statehood issue. It would really make a mess of things.
The upside to this likely decision, is that if this is the grounds on which it is based, it will mean the ruling has no effect outside of the District. The right to keep and bear arms will remain safe if you are in one of the several States.
The only question in the air then will be does the full faith and credit clause extend to protect Citizens when they are not within one of the States but otherwise within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.A.? For example, does the fact that a Montana Citizen have the right to keep and bear arms, extend to him while he is in Puerto Rico? If so, does it not also extend to D.C.? If not, why are they different?
Wow
look at what our government has done. This can't be mismanagement, this has to be intentional. They have ruined every system here. Everything I can think of has been ruined. Healthcare, monetary, military, education, infrastructure. Is this really happening?
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
Rogue State?
I can see where this is going; better if we can win the hearts and minds of the people in all states.
You mean
Has this really happened? The answer is, "Yes."
Arizona is already in, and they have an Act!
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/bills/hcr2034p...
"if any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows: that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States "
sortof ... there are contingencies, but still ...
Yes, but did you
see HB 2833? It deals with coded ammunition and an ammunition database. This bill is almost word for word like other bills in IL and PA. Also a state rep supposidly (I can't find the bill) that would make it illegal (felony) to be part of the Minutemen or to volunteer for border patrols while being armed. I will continue looking for the bill and post when found.
The lakotas claim they have...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/497959/russell_mean...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN4CuAIVFhM&feature=related
Does my burka make my butt look fatwa?
If-in
If Montana leaves the Union then Russia will recognize the new country the next day.... serves the US right.... AND I will move there!
You and me both. The place
You and me both. The place will be flooded with libertarians, and would probably experience an economic boom unlike any in history--a stable currency, no income tax, no federal reserve. But alas, I fear its just a dream. It'll happen over the international bankers' dead bodies.
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
The National Guard is not the Militia.
The National Guard is overseen by INTERPOL and the Department of Defense which receives it's directives from the UN Security Council. It has absolutely nothing to do with either State or Federal government. How could a militia be directed to protect the oil interests of the international cartels in Afghanistan, Iraq, Persian Gulf, etc.?
Can you please
present sources for your comments? I would like to read more about what you claim. Thanks
Read the following:
The 1976 Declaration of Interdependence, 1979 United Nations Industrial Development Organization Constitution and the 1981 Constitution for INTERPOL.
good stuff here
mentiosn national guard a few times:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
Bump
We LOVE Montana, our right to bear arms; big blue skys and Freedom. Bump
One of my friends recently
One of my friends recently moved to Montana. He said its nice. Maybe I will go look around
How serious is this threat?
How likely is it that they will actually ban all guns? I have heard of michigan's militia but is there actually a legal way to create a state militia so that citizens can own guns no matter what are militias still legal period? I have yet to buy any guns but after seeing some of this stuff lately I really want to stockpile a few weapons a pistol and a rifle or two. In alabama you can still buy an ak with a hundred round tumbler last time I checked. Do ar 15's have a similar tumbler? I thought the supreme court is in conservatives favor these days.
Also since when did they make being minutmen felons? Where's talk radio on that issue?
yeah
lets all move to Montana!!!!!
Ron Paul - Gov. of Montana
Where liberty lives I call home
Okay count me in too.
I had posted this on another thread yesterday -
Dear Dr Paul, please start your own country, maybe Montana, since Texas is too hot and they may be rejecting you anyway. Old America won't cut us off because they will need us; we will be the smartest and best. They will pay us for our inventions and doctoring and symphonies and engineering and writing and programming and designing and imagination and vision and determination and ultimately they will call on us to bail them out. Please Dr Paul - if you build it, we will come.
_________________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
I was in Cloumbia Falls
last month. It's beautiful there and I asked quite a few folks about the 2nd Amendment and they plan on keeping their guns.
I would love to live there, but I understand corporate land buying is rampant, and even though there is much open unoccupied area, land prices are through the roof.
It depends on where you move to
Western Montana is very expensive as a lot of out-of-staters have been moving in and driving up the prices. However, I understand that you can get very cheap property in Eastern Montana in places like Sidney or Glendale. Now granted, they are no where near as beautiful as the areas with mountains, but all of Montana sounds beautiful to me today (even Butte... well, maybe).
The sad thing is that I just moved out of Montana to take advantage of the lower real estate costs in Michigan. Now I am starting to wonder if I should have stayed. Then again, Michigan has a pretty good militia from the sounds of things, so we may be joining our Montanan brothers shortly. ;-)
WAY to go Montana!
great foresight on part of those who wrote your Constitution and required the contract...How much do houses rent for in Montana? Will preach for food and shelter for four (me, my wife, and two children). Oh...and my chiuahaha
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison