Repudlic of montana will it happen if Obama gets in
I know I posted this before but If Obama becomes president and starts to ban guns Montana is all ready said they may leave the USA ones it just may happen.
This is what the 2nd Amendment means to Montana people. This was in the news paper up here when the DC gun ban was going on
Montanans insist on gun rights
Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.
Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact.
"The U.S. 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," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.
The resolution also was signed by Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana's lone Republican congressman, and state Sen. Roy Brown, who is running to unseat Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.
The dispute goes back more than a century. Back in 1889, the settlers of the Montana territory struck a deal with the federal government: They agreed to join the union, and the government agreed that individuals had the right to bear arms.
That has worked fine for the past 118 years, but the Supreme Court is expected next month to hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the appeal of a federal court decision striking down the District's gun-ownership ban on Second Amendment grounds.
The high court has not issued a broad ruling on Second Amendment law in almost 70 years, including the key question of whether it provides an individual right, like speech and jury trial, or a "collective right" held by state governments. Many constitutional scholars, both liberal and conservative, say this case gives the justices an opportunity to rule on that matter.
The Montana statehood contract, which was preserved as Article I of the state constitution, specifies gun ownership as an individual right: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms ... shall not be called in question."
"There was a promise made to Montana that the right to bear arms was an individual right," said Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the author of a book on Montana gun law.
What's more, he said, a "collective-rights" interpretation would have been impossible because Montana had no state-run militia in the 1880s.
"It's pretty disingenuous as an argument," said Mr. Marbut. "At the time, they had no image of what a National Guard was. But history and logic don't always prevail in these matters."
Not all firearms advocates support the logic of the Montana resolution. Dave Kopel, a lawyer who runs the Independence Institute's Second Amendment Project in Golden, Colo., said the argument doesn't pass legal muster.
"Of course the historical evidence is unanimous that in 1889, the Second Amendment was considered to be an individual right comparable to the individual right of free speech," Mr. Kopel said in an e-mail. "However, the Montana Constitution's Compact Article does not prove that Montana entered the union contingent on the existence of a personal right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution."
At the same time, Mr. Kopel calls the collective-rights argument "totally implausible on every ground, other than desire of the contemporary gun prohibition movement to nullify part of the Constitution."
RE: Repudlic of montana will it happen if Obama gets in
Quote:
ORIGINAL: VAhuntr
Interesting to think about but could any single state survive such action?
No. Especially Montana. When the time comes, FEMA will make sure of that. Montana is a key state in martial law and population control. Montana is the last place on the planet you'd want to be when times get freaky.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
RE: Repudlic of montana will it happen if Obama gets in
Secession over gun rights?
Here's the deal for me, not like it matters at all, but here it is anyway:
If the government started rounding up rifles and shotguns, well, I'm not the one who will open up and shoot at Federal, local, or state officers. Not going to happen, I'm going to live, with or without guns, simple as that.There's more important things to life-God and family and service to those who are needy.
HOWEVER.........if this happened, and Governor Phil Bredesen ( or, if Marsha Blackburn gets elected in 2010 and is Governor) calls on the armed citizens of the State of Tennessee to get their guns and form local militias, disperse into the countryside, and be on the alert to defend the territory, then I would go out with my gun, and meet up with some other dudes, and start doing something tactical, but not idiotic. Then, if suddenly reports came that up in Bristol, there's a firefight going on, then that changes things......on the other hand, if I happen to be married at the time, and my wife is going to be alone at home with Federal troops searching house-to-house, that changes things.
Cross the bridge when you get to it, not before, otherwise, you'll not be ready to cross the bridge when you get to it, because you're already over it.
RE: Repudlic of montana will it happen if Obama gets in
Don't know that private citizens can stand up to modern troops. The anti-gun mantra of "machine guns too ???? Grenades ??? MISSILES !!???" would have to be a viable possibility for a state's populace to forcefully seceed from the union without legal standing. Technically, the Constitution and Bill of rights constitutes the contract between the Federal government and the states, as originally envisioned. Basically, each state was supposed to be sovereign, and by contracting with the others, form a union of sovereign states for the 'common good'. Basically, the original intent was that if the representation/governance of a particular state is not to one's liking, a citizen can pick up and move to a state more supportive of that citizen's views.
SO, technically, the act of secession would be fought in court, and affirmation or revocation/surrendur/rejection of statehood would need to be a matter of law. Don't know how that's gonna play out for Montana.....
Repudlic of montana will it happen if Obama gets in
