Montana And D.C. vs Heller (MERGED) - Page 3

Montana And D.C. vs Heller (MERGED)

This is a discussion on Montana And D.C. vs Heller (MERGED) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense No, Montana will not secede. No, the Federal government will not confiscate our firearms. The fact is that the Supreme Court ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Montana And D.C. vs Heller (MERGED)

  1. #31
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, Montana will not secede. No, the Federal government will not confiscate our firearms.

    The fact is that the Supreme Court decision will have virtually no effect. It will not strike down any law; it will not invalidate any standing law. It is merely an opinion.

    No matter how erudite, no matter how verbose, no matter how authoritative, the Supreme Court cannot change the easy to understand words of the Second Amendment. All they can do is to either strike or uphold a lower court opinion. In the final analysis, the people of Washington DC or any state, decide what local laws apply. In DC, they decided to elect a crackhead mayor and ban guns. The Constitution is clear. You can elect a crackhead mayor and the Federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

    If the people of DC want the law changed then CHANGE THE LAW.

    Why would anyone abdicate the power of the people to the faux authority of nine Americans in robes, accountable to no one?
    Cop-out? It's the same way most gun laws, for example, have made it on the books.

    Anyway, I agree. The only direct effect would be to strike down or support the DC handgun ban, and set a precedent using whatever reasoning they add to the decision for any future cases. Regardless of which way the pendulum swings, it will result in a storm of new court cases trying to use this new, modern ruling.


    -B


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array CEW58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    You know. You constantly make me want to move to Montana with these kinds of threads.
    Same here. Plus I do have family "next door" in Wyoming!
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. ~ Albert Einstein

    Sig P229 DAK - .40 S&W
    Ruger SP101 - .357 Mag

  3. #33
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,372
    No, Montana will not secede.
    You're right, of course. We won't secede over this. I said that tongue-in-cheek, given Montana's traditional distrust of the Federal government.

    We're a pretty independent bunch out here. We don't like the Feds telling us how fast we can drive or that we have to wear seat belts. We have State laws against the Federal Real I.D. Act and the Gun Free School Zones Act.

    We're home to a former County Sheriff (and NRA Board member) who successfully sued the Feds over the Brady Act, which was upheld by SCOTUS.

    Yes, we will remain part of the Union.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  4. #34
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Cop-out? It's the same way most gun laws, for example, have made it on the books.

    Anyway, I agree. The only direct effect would be to strike down or support the DC handgun ban, and set a precedent using whatever reasoning they add to the decision for any future cases. Regardless of which way the pendulum swings, it will result in a storm of new court cases trying to use this new, modern ruling.
    You are right, of course. In my opinion, a complete waste of time. Congress should disband every Federal court as they exist at the pleasure of Congress. The fewer courts, the fewer court cases. As we have previously discussed, the Court was never intended to determine wheth laws were unconstitutional nor were they given the power to strike down any law. Their power is illusory.

    I don't know why we continue to sunject ourselves to the vagaries of the Court. Don't like gun control laws? Don't pass them. Educate the people, as we are doing, to help them understand why gun control is bad. Simply pointing to the 2A is lazy. The 2A is a guide. The laws are what we follow.

    Naturally, our court crazed society breeds people who inhabit those venerable halls. As Al Pacino's chacter said in the movie, 'The Devil's Advocate: 'There are more students in law schools than there are lawyers walking the Earth'

    And that is never a good thing.

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    In the final analysis, the people of Washington DC or any state, decide what local laws apply. In DC, they decided to elect a crackhead mayor and ban guns. The Constitution is clear. You can elect a crackhead mayor and the Federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
    Why would anyone abdicate the power of the people to the faux authority of nine Americans in robes, accountable to no one?
    I agree, whole heartedly. Sadly far too many believe the courts or "the power brokers" (whatever that is) rule this country. For many even here on this board Rule By The People, For The People, is some kind of adolescent ideal, not reality. So they become apathetic victims of the system, because they do nothing. While the Brady bunch mobilizes, propagandizes, campaigns, votes for laws and representatives that support their agenda. If we want our rights we have to be willing to fight for them. Having said that, I do think there will be some very far reaching consequences from Heller vs DC. If the court rules that the phrase "The People" in 2A means the "State" not the "Individual" it would undermine the whole Bill Of Rights because that will mean the only State not Individuals have the freedom of religion, speech etc. Basically it will change the whole meaning and purpose of the Bill of Rights. Because by definition it will Bill of States Rights not Bill of Individual Rights. Because of that I do not see the court ruling in favor of Wash. DC. On the flip side if the court rules in our favor that "The People" in 2A means means the "Individual" as it has on every other amendment a lot of laws and more become unconstitutional. Like how can the state register a Constitutional Right.
    There is an interesting blog that discuses some consequences. It Doesnt Matter What Happens In Heller.
    Last edited by LongRider; February 24th, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason: typos grammar content fix link
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    I agree, whole heartedly. Sadly far too many believe the courts or "the power brokers" (whatever that is) rule this country. For many even here on this board Rule By The People, For The People, is some kind of adolescent ideal, not reality. So they become apathetic victims of the system, because they do nothing. While the Brady bunch mobilizes, propagandizes, campaigns, votes for laws and representatives that support their agenda. If we want our rights we have to be willing to fight for them.
    I think people vote for those so called "power brokers" to represent their views, ideals, etc...it is called democracy. Sometimes your candidate loses...and your ideals with it...then you get lobbyists (NRA, Brady Bunch, Coors Beer etc etc). Pretty simple.

    What gets complicated is when a person feels they are disenfranchised, loss of individual rights because their candidate lost (you know, the 51% rule). Or their interpretation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is different than the "Power Brokers". Then what do you do???

    I agree wholeheartedly that the masses need to be mobilized to support (or not support) an initiative (just as Montana, VPOTUS, and a significant number of Congressional Members (you know, the "Power Brokers"). The "Power Brokers" do rule the country because people gave them the mandate to do so until the next election....uh, called democracy. In the middle of all this is impeachment if that power broker is broken and not representing the people as intended. Pretty simple.

    It is the system we have, with all the warts...but it is sure a far better system then any other place on this world...try living in Saudi like a few of us have.

    Rick

  7. #37
    Distinguished Member Array Pro2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,933

    Smile Montana Warns U.S. Supreme Court

    I heard this at the rally on Monday from the Pres. of GOA. I'll try to remember how he said it the best I can. On February 22, 2008, the state of Montana warned the U.S. Supreme Court that it must uphold the Second amendment as an individual right in the D.C. vs Heller case. Failure to do so would place Montana in violation of its compact (an agreement to join the union) with the United States. The legislature of the state of Montana reasoned in the resolution that:

    "When the Court determines in D.C. vs 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".

    Let me explain this a little better. Montana joined the Union in 1889. When they joined they signed something called a compact. It was understood as Montana entered the Union with the Constitution approved by President Harrison in 1889, the right for any person to bear arms, was clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract.

    In February in a bi-partisan movment in the state house and senate, also signed by the govenor the state passed a resolution... The Montana secritary of state sent a letter to the local DC news paper and said that "If the Supreme Court does not uphold the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and that the court rules that it can some how in some way infringe on the second amendment (basically regulate it) that it would put into question the continuing validity of the compact".

    This is basically a half inch away from saying we're out of here... The resolution by Montana is the strongest warning from a state threatening secession to date.

    Thoughts?

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    ...

    Thoughts?
    Similar if not almost identical thread (exact discussion comes up) here:
    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...vs-heller.html

    I don't think this will be an issue, but if DC v. Heller goes the wrong way, it doesn't justify secession IMO. Now, if DC v. Heller goes the wrong way and federal laws begin restricting gun rights even worse... well that's another story. In that case, Montana, and my State Washington, have State constitutions that guarantee the right of the individual.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array MR D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    864
    OPFOR brings up a curious "state" of affairs - after all DC is not a "state" but a federal district - so what rights or priveledges secured for the states are secured for the district?

    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Actually, of course, the word "State" is in the 2A, but it is commonly interpreted to mean state as in "sovereign entity" rather than meaning a State in particular.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I would absolutely love to see all the states that joined the Republic with a contract guaranteeing the right to bear arms sue the federal government should SCOTUS completely lose their collective minds and rule the 2A a collective right.
    it could be easily argued that every state after the original 13 "joined the Republic with a contract guaranteeing the right to bear arms sue the federal government should SCOTUS completely lose their collective minds and rule the 2A a collective right"

    each state had to accept the US Constitution as it was at the time of making the agreement to join - Ohio 1803


  10. #40
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by MR D View Post
    OPFOR brings up a curious "state" of affairs - after all DC is not a "state" but a federal district - so what rights or priveledges secured for the states are secured for the district?



    it could be easily argued that every state after the original 13 "joined the Republic with a contract guaranteeing the right to bear arms sue the federal government should SCOTUS completely lose their collective minds and rule the 2A a collective right"

    each state had to accept the US Constitution as it was at the time of making the agreement to join - Ohio 1803

    If I remember correctly, in 1803 the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th amendments only applied to the federal government, not the states.

    You did not have a federal constitutional right to the right to remain silent, to have an attorney, a speedy and public trial, a right to a jury trial, or the protection against cruel and unusual punishment if you were being tried by a State Court.

    In 1803 women weren't allowed to vote and slavery was legal.

    I'm not all that eager to regress to that situation.

    When you make statements like "each state had to accept the US Constitution as it was at the time of making the agreement to join - Ohio 1803" you aught to think of issues other than the one at hand.

    Unintended consequences and so forth.

    While I could live with taking the vote away from women (Kidding...Kidding...really...maybe) I'm kinda keen on the rest of those protections under law and I don't like slavery all that much, so maybe your idea of the States accepting only the Constitution as it existed when they were admitted into the union is a bit flawed.

    After all, Alaska and Hawaii were admitted after the 1934 National Firearms Act, so does that mean the residents of that state implicitly accept its restrictions on their right to bear arms?

    As to D.C. and the rights the residents enjoy, see the dissenting opinion in the Heller decision from the 12th circuit.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    Thoughts?
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Similar if not almost identical thread (exact discussion comes up) here:
    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...vs-heller.html

    I don't think this will be an issue, but if DC v. Heller goes the wrong way, it doesn't justify secession IMO. Now, if DC v. Heller goes the wrong way and federal laws begin restricting gun rights even worse... well that's another story. In that case, Montana, and my State Washington, have State constitutions that guarantee the right of the individual.
    Thoughts?....We all should move to the Unified Country of Montana
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Montana-made guns bill, passed 80-20 (Merged)
    By DOGOFWAR01 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2009, 04:34 AM
  2. Montana gets DoD to reverse Brass Decision (Merged)
    By DOGOFWAR01 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 18th, 2009, 10:13 PM
  3. DC vs. Heller:ALL Related Discussion: VICTORY! Merged
    By BigEFan in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 573
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 12:18 PM

Search tags for this page

dc vs montana

Click on a term to search for related topics.