Monday, March 10, 2008

Republic of Montana?

Next month the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms covers individuals, or just “collective right” of a state to have a state militia like the national guard. According to an article in the Washington Times:

Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Curt 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 article says that “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.”

6 comments:

Robert said...

It's just not agreements they've made with other state governments, its the contracts they've made with individuals. The bill of rights is written in a way that limits the power of the government, not the people. The bill always refers to the right of the individual, not groups. That's why this constant crusade to remove the rights of the individual is such an affront.

That being said, I am concerned that the leftmost leaning individuals on the Supreme Court won't care what it says, they'll find reason to vote against it.

professor ed said...

Montana would do well to remember a "state's rights" discussion of the he early to mid 1860s. South Carolina was not allowed to leave the Union, and neither will Montana be permitted to so do. The matter of states removing (suceeding)themselves from the federal Union, whether it be New England states in the early 1800s, SC in the middle 1800s, or Colorado today, was settled by FORCE a long time ago.

Dennis said...

If Montanans were inclinde to secede, I would hope they wouldn't fight on the battle field (their fate would undoubtedly be like that of General Custer who died there), but it would certainly be intersting if they took the case to the Supreme Court. Wouldn't you love to see the gymnastics the high court would have to use to twist their way out of that one :-)

Alcamadus said...

And lets be honest, if Montana was permitted to leave it would be a 3rd world country in 2 years.

Dennis said...

I don't know about that...Montana has a lot of natural resources... but I suspect that if Montana was successful there would be numerous states that would follow and it would be the end of the union.

Anonymous said...

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.Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Curt rules in the D.C. gun ban case.
===================================
charles
Montana Alcohol Addiction Treatment