Montana officials threaten secession over Heller

The Mental Militia Forums

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 03, 2010, 03:17:22 AM

Check out and contribute to our new Wolfekipedia:
http://thementalmilitia.com/wiki/
or
https://thementalmilitia.com/wiki/

328218 Posts in 25465 Topics by 3721 Members
Latest Member: Midge

Montana and Heller

From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
To: mssa@mtssa.org

Dear MSSA Friends,

A letter to the editor from Montana's Secretary of State Brad Johnson
was printed in the Washington Times today making the argument that a
collective rights decision in the Heller case would violated the
contract by which Montana entered into statehood, a unique argument
unmentioned in the many briefs submitted over the Heller case.

The text of Brad's letter is pasted below.

The Resolution this letter speaks of is posted at:

http://www.progunleaders.org

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

=======================

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
<http://www.progunleaders.org>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.

The Resolution this letter speaks of is posted at:

http://www.progunleaders.org

Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller

Explanation for this page:

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of D.C. v. Heller, the first case in 70 years in which the Court will squarely addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment. The core question is whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, or if it merely protects a right for the states to arm their National Guards, known as the "collective rights" theory.

Many entities will submit amicus briefs, but Montana has not been able to submit an amicus concerning the states' contract argument because of time and money.

The purpose of this argument is to demonstrate that if the Court should hold the Secondment Amendment to be a "collective right," that position will open a can of worms concerning states, and concerning contracts.

The Resolution concurred in by many elected Montana officials is here http://www.progunleaders.org/resolution.html

The argument about Montana's contract and the Second Amendment is here http://www.progunleaders.org/argument.html

The list of officials concurring individually (to date) in this Resolution is here http://www.progunleaders.org/officials.html

=======================================================

Briefs in re Heller submitted by various parties HERE.

This is very interesting Basil. I'll be moving to Montana in June, so I might be in time for a secession party.

Shorty Dawkins

Excellent, Shorty! Look forward to seeing you. Where in Montana?

Basil

Quote from: Basil Fishbone on February 19, 2008, 11:22:00 AM

Excellent, Shorty! Look forward to seeing you. Where in Montana?

Basil

I haven't decided. I'll scope it out when I get there. Hope to visit you and Elias, as well as some others.

Shorty Dawkins

Quote from: TooTallDawkins on February 19, 2008, 11:23:24 AM

Quote from: Basil Fishbone on February 19, 2008, 11:22:00 AM

Excellent, Shorty! Look forward to seeing you. Where in Montana?

Basil

I haven't decided. I'll scope it out when I get there. Hope to visit you and Elias, as well as some others.

Shorty Dawkins

Well I'll be danged! That's great news, Shorty Dawkins! Keep in touch so we can coordinate a meet-up with you. Looking forward to seeing you....

Secession is becoming a commonly-heard word around here (Montana), and we've got some people in state government who will represent us on major issues such as 2nd Amendment. This is going to be very interesting, especially when coupled with Governor Schweitzer's rebellion against the Real ID Act - see here -

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/montana-governo.html

I need a mini-rant....

It is like we here in Montana are being asked to grant some damned government way far away from here to be allowed to dabble in debates over whether or not we can bear arms as individuals at the same time the Feds are wanting to tag all of us into national databases which shall destroy our remaining liberties under the now-shredded Bill of Rights. Enough is enough. The Jefferson River Coalition is turning up the heat. "America" is still going to exist in Montana, even if Montana has to leave America to preserve it here.

End mini-rant ~

Salute!
Elias

Salute!
Elias

Section 12.

from

The Constitution of the State of Montana

Article II - Declaration of Rights

News Release - Montana statehood contract at risk

From: Gary Marbut-MSSA <mssa@mtssa.org>
To: mssa@mtssa.org

NEWS RELEASE
(for immediate release - February 19, 2008)

Montana Officials Concerned Over Statehood Contract Violation
Supreme Court could violate statehood contract in Heller decision

MISSOULA - Numerous elected Montana officials
have concurred in a
<http://www.progunleaders.org>Resolution
asserting that a case before the U.S. Supreme
Court could violate Montana's contract for
statehood. These officials include Montana's
lone Congressman Denny Rehberg and Montana
Secretary of State Brad Johnson. The court is
reviewing D.C. v. Heller, the first occasion in
over 60 years that the Court will consider
whether the Second Amendment secures an
individual right or merely grants states the
power to arm their National Guards, called the "collective rights" view.

The Montana Resolution
(<http://www.progunleaders.org>at
progunleaders.org) cautions that a collective
rights decision would violate the Montana
contract for statehood because when that contract
was entered the collective rights interpretation
had not yet been invented and the individual
rights view was an accepted part of the
contract. A letter to the editor from Montana
Secretary of State Brad Johnson was printed today
(2/19) in the Washington Times making this
argument and citing the Montana Resolution.
(<http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage>Letter)

Montana Shooting Sports Association president
Gary Marbut commented, "A collective rights
decision in Heller would not only violate
Montana's contract for statehood, but also
Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope
the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the
contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any
of the briefs submitted in the Heller case."

The Montana contract for statehood is archived at
Article I of the Montana Constitution as the
Compact with the United States. At the time the
Compact was agreed upon between Montana and the
U.S., Congress approved the Montana Constitution
which included the right of "any person" to bear
arms, clearly an individual right. The Montana
right of "any person" to bear arms and the effect
of the Second Amendment were considered to be
consistent with each other, both securing individual rights.

Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the
intent of the parties to the contract. A
collective rights decision by the Court could
also call into question the sanctity of
contracts, considered to have been a bedrock
principle of law for centuries. Although many
amicus briefs have been submitted in the Heller
case, none have articulated the statehood contract issue.

Montana accepted and was admitted into statehood
in 1889. Several convergent events were
necessary for Montana statehood. The Enabling
Act of Congress required that Montana adopt an
acceptable constitution. In response to this
requirement, Montana adopted the statehood
constitution of 1889. This constitution reserved
the right of "any person" to bear arms, which was
unchanged in the 1972 revision of the Montana
Constitution. Montana was required to pass
Ordinance 1, a part of which entailed Montana's
acceptance and adoption of the U.S. Constitution,
including the Second Amendment as it is still worded today.

Congress gave authority to President Benjamin
Harrison to determine that Montana had met the
congressionally-mandated eligibility requirements
for statehood. President Harrison declared in
writing that Montana had met the requirements
established by Congress, including an acceptable
constitution. In his presidential declaration,
President Harrison said that, "… the conditions
imposed by Congress on the State of Montana to
entitle that State to admission to the Union have
been ratified and accepted …" By that
presidential declaration, the contract was
consummated, and remains in effect today.

That the Second Amendment was understood in 1889
to secure an individual right to bear arms is
confirmed by the acceptance of the Montana
Constitution's right for "any person" to bear
arms, and the accepted compatibility between that
Montana right and the Second Amendment. That
Montana has a contract with the United States is
documented in Article I of the Montana
Constitution. That a contract must be
interpreted and implemented consistent with the
understanding and intent of the parties at the
time the contract was entered into is a bedrock principle of contract law.

- 30 -

Information: <http://www.progunleaders.org>progunleaders.org
Gary Marbut, 406-549-1252

Elias said: "Well I'll be danged! That's great news, Shorty Dawkins! Keep in touch so we can coordinate a meet-up with you. Looking forward to seeing you...."

Thanks Elias. I'll definitely keep in touch.

Shorty Dawkins

Shorty is back as himself. laugh

Thanks Mr. Dare!!!

I have a new password, so I can post under my original name. Whoopee!!!!

Shorty Dawkins

Welcome back! Sadly I am not tech savvy enough to restore an account... mayhap it was Dare2? She's the capable wet ware behind all the functioning software in our house! (I certainly WOULD have done so, but would probably not have been successful...) rolleyes

Yep, it was me. Glad it worked for you Shorty!

Here's the linky for this. Secession is in the Montana air!

Basil

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage

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.

Truly heartening to see folks take a stand in MT. Especially elected officials that believe enough in their oath of office to protect the state from intrusion by the Feds. All these 50 states have allowed the Feds to intimidate and alter activities for TOO MANY years. BTW, it's These United States, not THE United States. This difference appears to be lost on the bulk of the US population.

Gary Marbut-MSSA is a real yeoman! I tip my hat and a offer hearty Thank You to his efforts.

We plan on moving West within the next couple of years. After much wrangling, it's down to Wyoming or Montana. Wyoming has better job prospects for my field at this point and a better tax structure, but Montana is really showing the way from a LIBERTY ATTITUDE and ACTION standpoint. That will be hard to pass up, as a populace actively pursuing the attributes of liberty is a population that is difficult to conquer. Conversely, a slumbering populace is a vulnerable populace and one left only with the vestiges of liberty to ponder.

Didn't New Hampshire talk of this a while back? Nothing came of it though.

I would LOVE to see a state succeed. Any state.
I think Montana has a better chance than most, being of low population.

If they did... and it was actually a decent place to go (actually libertarian to some extent) I would definitly look at moving there.

The bad thing is, I think if they did they would have to be very careful about who came into the state. Reminds me of one hardyville article, akin to everyone saying "Lets move to canada because the US sucks!" and end up with a bunch of communists moving in.

Quote from: bobcat on February 20, 2008, 02:07:28 PM

Here, Here!!

It is the slumbering populace and also the Gov selling us out through the back door, that has made us take a long hard look at the question, "do we stay here in Idaho, or move"?

Montana is really becoming more and more attractive to us.

If we are to make a stand, for our individual liberties and the liberties of our grandchildren, we would rather be standing with other freedom minded individuals, as a united front, not as a small minority that can be picked off, one by one.

As the maestro, Frank Zappa crooned, "Movin' to Montana soon....".

Bob