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 ...
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'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.No, Montana will not secede.
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.
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.
There is an interesting blog that discuses some consequences. It Doesnt Matter What Happens In Heller.
Last edited by LongRider; February 24th, 2008 at 01:30 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
each state had to accept the US Constitution as it was at the time of making the agreement to join - Ohio 1803
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.