Montana threatening "Secession"? RE: DC:HELLER?

[beevul]

http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

JOHNSON JOINS "HELLER" CHORUS


HELENA—Secretary of State Brad Johnson joined the many other Montanans who have weighed in on the DC v. Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A letter to the editor from Johnson appeared in today’s Washington Times, urging the court to protect an individual’s right to bear arms.

“This is an important issue for Montanans,” Johnson said. “Many of Montana’s elected officials spoke out on this issue; I am proud to be among them.”

Johnson’s letter argued that Montana’s agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montana’s constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of “any person” to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States.

Many other elected officials around Montana have concurred in a statement of the same argument, in a bipartisan effort to defend Montanans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. The list of officials, as well as their resolution, can be found at: http://www.progunleaders.org.

The letter can be found below:

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.

This is an interesting turn of events.


Discuss.

[Hobarticus]

1. Bye, Montana?

[villager]

2. interesting. I had some pro-gun folks tee off on me in another thread discussing

the possible merits or circumstances of secession (is there some point at which it becomes tenable, etc.)

So -- are the gunners suddenly all for it now?

Curioser and curiouser...

[benEzra]

49. It's more a statement of how important Montana considers gun ownership...

that they would be willing to secede, with all that entails, were the RKBA to be significantly abrogated.

In a lot of the country, the right to responsibly own and use guns is considered part of the basic social contract between the government and its people, and an abrogration of that right is considered a fundamental breach of the social contract itself.

[villager]

52. I just don't see the same gun folks screaming about how horrible secession is

in this particular context.

Ironical, ain't it?

[benEzra]

53. Personally, I think there are situations in which it would indeed be tenable

and perhaps the least of multiple evils. If that was your position, then I agree with you. I think the current administration has perhaps underscored that fact in some ways.

[villager]

54. well, that was the position I got "blasted" for by your fellow gunphiles!

who, in this thread, seem to've changed their tune...

[benEzra]

59. Gun owners are not a monolithic group by any means.

I'm not surprised you'd find a diversity of opinion on that topic, any more than you'd find a diversity of opinion on gay marriage.

There is a large thread on the High Road (popular gun board) about the topic, with people debating both sides, but the majority seem to be in the "it's tenable in extremis, and the aftermath of the bad Heller decision could be in extremis" camp.

[villager]

65. uh, except when it comes to discussing proposed gun laws.

n/t

[EricTeri]

66. Uh - no.

Unfortunately for gun owners, you're wrong about that. There are a lot of gun owners who take, in my opinion, a disturbingly short-sighted view and seem to believe that by supporting the outlawing of one kind of firearm, their preferred firearms will be left alone.

[villager]

67. uh -yes

If this forum is any indication whatsoever. As your post testifies about what constitutes a "short-sighted" view.

In other words, you want all firearms allowed -- even, one assums, machine guns, etc.?

[EricTeri]

68. As a matter of fact

Yes, i do believe all ARE allowed. In case you missed it (its been pointed out MANY times), full auto firearms are perfectly legal.

Regardless of my belief though, the government has never been granted the authority to restrict ownership. You're more than welcome to work for an amendment to do just that. Good luck with it.

[villager]

69. So you're in favor of Thompson submachines being sold?

well, at least you're one of the more *honest* ammo lovers in the gungeon...

[EricTeri]

70. Sure am..

So's the government incidentally as they are 100% legal to own and transfer.

[villager]

74. Why stop there? Let students bring 'em to college campuses! No restrictions, right?

n/t

[NewMoonTherian]

85. Now that you mention it...

There's a bill going before the Oklahoma state legislature that would do just that. It was filed(is that the proper term?) in response to the Virginia Tech tragedy. I've already called my rep in support of it.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080227_1_A9_spanc67651

Oklahoma has a score of 2 out of 100 on the Brady Campaign scoreboard, those two points being because we don't force colleges to allow guns on campus. We are currently tied for 49th place among the states, and passing this bill would put us at number 50 with with a score of ZERO points. I hope I'll be able to report later this year that Oklahoma is the most gun-friendly state in the Union.

[jody]

71. Thompson submachines can be legally owned under 26 USC Chapter 53

CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

[tburnsten]

88. I love the Thompson

And I wish that machine guns manufactured after 1986 would still be legal to transfer to other than government entities, so that I could eventually (when the time is right and I have enough money) buy a modern, newly made replica of one. Semi versions are out there, but I want to original. I also want an STG 44, because it is such a neat weapon, and the two of them are great little pieces of military history.


You sound like you feel that any weapon sold is bound to be used against people. That is not the case, and the majority of gun owners in the country are just like me, they enjoy shooting for the mechanical and historic aspect, as well as the sheer joy of putting concentration into a few shots and walking away with a beautiful group. Not everyone is a sociopath you know.

[iverglas]

89. well, as long as we're here

R.I.P.!!

[albert johnson]

84. good for them,but they shouldnt be to hopeful,look at the indians,totally screwed by the govt.

lie after lie after lie they were told and still are.

[autorank]

3. cya later and enjoy!

Oh brother. It's OK for them to be part of union that lets the president declare war without Congress when the Constitution is clear on that but when the Supreme Court says it will hear a call to clarify the doctrine we get this nonsense. This reminds me of the welfare proposal in the West about giving away federal lands. Why? Oh, because earning your living through work is not nearly as profitable as having someone give you something.

Take the guns, settle up for the federal assets in your state and take a hike.

Utter nonsense on their part. Where are the values?

[Turbo Teg]

6. Well hopefully

The supreme court will rule the second amendment is an indivdual right, and we won't have to worry about Montana leaving or anything. Then we can get to the important issue, like repealing the '86 machine gun ban. I'd like to see that go away.

[L1A1Rocker]

12. I agree

100% with that statement.

[autorank]

57. The Supreme Court shoudl interpret the Constitution. This one's easy.

It refers to militias, not individuals. I really don't care much about this issue. We have a carry permit, very liberal, where I live. Nobody shoots anybody. You don't even think about it. I never hear it mentioned.

But just read the 2nd... it's easy. It refers to militias.

Let 'em go. They can become part of Canada, but wait, Canada regulates guns. They can be independent and all alone.

Machine guns, now those should be banned. How many holes do you have to put in Bamby?;)

[Turbo Teg]

60. It's

Not about hunting :) Also if it refers only to militias, then I'm starting my own malitia and I need a couple of AT-4s and Javalins.

[EricTeri]

61. The logic that it only refers to militas is faulty.

If that were the case, tell me again why it says "..the right of the people..."?

Remember, the 2nd Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, restricts government. It does not confer any power or authority to the federal government, and nothing else in the US Constitution grants any powers to the states. Consequently, the whole line of reasoning which believes the 2nd only grants the states power to arm the militia simply doesn't make sense.

BTW - as others have pointed out, it isn't about hunting anyway. Never has been.

[autorank]

78. Well, I think I agree with you.

It always helps to re-read this;)

"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."

It is pretty clear about the right of the people, for the purse of of the "well regulated militia." But the meaning is seen in the times. You were not constantly in the militia, it was organized at different points.

Then the question becomes, how does the state define "arms" - but that's another issue.

Good point.

[liberal4truth]

58. When does Montana teach Dick "Elmer Fudd" Cheney about gun safety?

After all that old bastard is from Montana isnt he? x(

If thats what they call "well-regulated", shooting your hunting partner,
I think they need to read their own constitution again!

[EricTeri]

62. irrelevant and totally unrelated.

Of course, like a typical uninformed anti-rights gun-hater, its easier to ridicule than learn.

[liberal4truth]

76. Learn what? The 2nd amendment applies to the federal government, not the states.

The states can and have adopted many different gun-control laws.

D.C. is no different and the law will stand as is. No guns in the District of Columbia without a permit or by law enforcement agents.

See, its that plain and simple.

[sergeiAK]

77. How about the 1st then?

Does that apply to the states too?

[beevul]

80. I wouldn't be betting on that...

"D.C. is no different and the law will stand as is. No guns in the District of Columbia without a permit or by law enforcement agents."



D.C. is MOST certainly "different, being that it is a federal jurisdiction rather than a state. ANd the bill of rights should and will apply accordingly.

plus:

"No guns in the District of Columbia without a permit or by law enforcement agents."

Thats a verry disingenuous way of describing current D.C. law, since they ARE NOT issuing permits.

But you knew that didn't you.

[SteveM]

82. Prediction: SCOTUS will not accept D.C.'s "our plantation" argument.

[Spoonman]

63. Elmer Fudd

I don't care what the popular opinion about Cheney is here, ANYONE who shoots a lawyer has redeeming qualities!

[EricTeri]

64. heheheh

Yeah - you gotta give him kudos for THAT at least :)

[iverglas]

91. so much truth ...

... so little time ...

[sandnsea]

4. I think that's also in the Montana Constitution

They have to threaten secession once a year or somebody blows up the state capitol. They're always threatening secession, or telling the feds to fuck off in one way or other. That's how MT got $5 speeding tickets. One of the things I loved about living there, that take no shit attitude. I also know that they're very reasonable when it comes to responsible gun ownership and would be more than happy to come up with regulations that will keep kids from dying in the cities, if somebody would just go talk to them.

[sergeiAK]

15. Unfortunately, regulations don't stop people from dying

I'd like to hear what regulations you propose that would "keep kids from dying in the cities", while still respecting the Bill of Rights.

I seem to recall murder being illegal already.

[sandnsea]

17. We aren't going to make murder legal

just because the law hasn't eliminated all murder. That's a stupid argument.

We can require trigger locks, locked storage, tighter enforcement of gun sellers, all sorts of things. It is not a violation of any gun owners' rights to implement regulations in the same manner we do to speech or any of the other civil rights.

[sergeiAK]

19. Exact regulations, please.

Trigger locks are already mandated to be given with a handgun, not sure what else you propose. As for locked storage, kinda obviates the usefulness of a defensive weapon, no?

Tighter enforcement of gun shops? In what way? You mean the BATF's attempts to put small dealers out of business? Or the "gun show loophole" which is bandied about so frequently?

Also, I was referring to the fact that it's already illegal to kill, so more laws aren't very likely to help. This nation has a cultural issue with violence, and laws can't fix that.

[sandnsea]

22. Let me make this clear

I am speaking about talking to the 90% of gun owners who are rational and accept that gun ownership requires a higher level of responsibility and regulation than say, chocolate ownership. We already have an array of regulation on guns, ammunition, manufacturing, sales, and possession. We can put ten times the money into enforcement of our current laws, create some new laws where necessary, doesn't matter to me how we do it. But we need to do it and the majority of the country need to tell the 10% to sit down and shut the fuck up. We're going to save kids' lives now.

[sergeiAK]

24. You speak and speak, and yet say nothing

You have said nothing useful here. Specifics get results. Broad generalities make it appear you have no ideas, just that you want something done. Democrats are supposed to be leaders, and leading means results.

And while you give a backhanded insult to anyone who doesn't agree with you, you mention the "array of regulations" that we have, without proposing a fix. Either say what you want done, or accept the current scenario.

In that vein, here's my idea: Make the BATFE obey the law, first and foremost. They in many cases don't even know their own regulations on what is and isn't allowed. They need to come up with some documented standards, and actually apply them. Having the misfortune of holding an 03 FFL, the BATF is extremely unforgiving if you make any attempts to know the law, yet paradoxically rather lax if you flagrantly break it. Next, we need to crack down on straw purchases, and provide a useful method to report them. I've personally witnessed an FFL holder telling a cop that someone was attempting one, and the cop's attitude was "so what? tell him no and be done with it". This is unacceptable. Straw purchases need to be prosecuted more often. Next, mental health standards need to be clarified and added to NICS. The current system doesn't work, and won't work if the health/LE system doesn't report people that it should. OTOH, we shouldn't allow total health record opening, as that's a humongous privacy issue, that we cannot deal with at the moment. This is one of the few areas that I think legislation is needed in. We need to clearly define what disqualifies someone, and then make reporting that condition mandatory. The latest bill, which the NRA (oh, that evil 10%) supported, was a good start in that area. The grey area here is that we must maintain due process in denying someone their rights, so any evaluations must go before a court and must be subject to judicial review. Next, we need to rationalize our gun laws, as some of them are just insane. A legal rifle can be made illegal by swapping a foreign made part for a US made copy of that exact part. Same part, same function, one is a felony. WTF? Furthering this, the NFA registry needs to be reopened, and we need to perform an audit of the records.

On the topic of the BATF, here's an experiment: Call them and ask them what their testing standards for determining whether a gun is a machinegun or not are. Trick question, they don't have any documented standards. They make them up as they go along, and don't document what they did, so in court all that is said is "it fired automatically and we can't tell you how we made it do that". They have recently flip-flopped their decision on a device, the Akins Accelerator, declaring it first legal, then illegal once the maker had invested a significant amount of capital. They're one of the worst examples of what a government agency can become.

Legislation isn't a fix for bad enforcement. It also isn't a fix for an agency that needs a complete overhaul.

Now, I've put up my ideas. Offer yours.

[sandnsea]

25. Good. Great.

Go get it done and quit bitching about the gun grabbers.

[sergeiAK]

27. Your ideas?

Somehow I missed where you proposed anything?

I write my reps/senators, I vote. I'm an NRA member. How about you? What have you done?

Or will you continue to dodge my questions?

And the reason I "bitch about the gun grabbers" is because of bills like the ammo serialization bill (aka the double the price of ammo bill), and HR-1022, a bigger, badder, AWB. These bills have a negative effect on my rights. That's why I complain.

[sandnsea]

33. It doesn't matter to me

It's not the point. The point is that it's possible for people to come together and make acceptable laws if they aren't led around by the NRA. Why don't you find the gun violence people in your state and meet with them to find methods you all agree on?

[sergeiAK]

35. It's always the eeeevil NRA

Standing in the way of such enlightened ideas. This isn't a local issue, it's a federal one. I am involved, to the extent that I can be, and I donate to the NRA-ILA so that they can lobby on my behalf. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the government, just as the rest of the Bill of Rights are. You seem to think that DC should be allowed to nullify the 2nd Amendment within its borders on a simple vote, which is exactly what the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

The NRA lobbies for my version of "acceptable laws". How have they led people around? They lobby for the 2nd Amendment, as ratified.

Also, the "gun violence" people you reference are generally people like the VPC, who are the very definition of "gun grabber". Nevertheless, I have taken one of them shooting. I'm willing to wager that's more than you've done, seeing as you can't even define a stance on the issue.

[sandnsea]

38. *sigh* Well that was short lived

Which is why I don't bother posting a lot of ideas about reasonable gun legislation.

[L1A1Rocker]

39. That's because

so few gun control ideas are reasonable.

[iverglas]

90. he lived short

but he lived fast!

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

50. I've tried that, here and elsewhere...

The point is that it's possible for people to come together and make acceptable laws if they aren't led around by the NRA. Why don't you find the gun violence people in your state and meet with them to find methods you all agree on?

I've tried that, here and elsewhere. Some suggestions I've made in the past are

(1) opening up NICS to private sales in some way, as long as it was not onerous and there were criminal safeguards against registration or harassment;

(2) tracing of all guns used in murders and prosecution of the intentional straw purchasers identified thereby (not to include bona fide victims of theft or cons, though);

(3) tax credit for purchase of a UL-listed gun safe, to help working-class families more easily afford them (we went years without a safe because we simply couldn't afford one, though we have one now);

(4) encourage a return to the successful community policing model instead of the "keep the 'civilians' in line"/Homeland Security/Surveillance Nation model currently in vogue on both the right and the left;

(5) a more intelligent approach to the War on Non-Approved Herbs, which is directly responsible for most U.S. gun violence, just as alcohol prohibition was in its era;

(6) provide adequate mental health care in this country, and destigmatize it instead of trying so hard to make it more stigmatized;

and so on. There are more, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Unfortunately, my experience has been that a majority of gun-control activists are more concerned with restrictions for restrictions' sake, rather than looking for reasonable, common-ground solutions to bona fide concerns. The obsession with outlawing AR-15's (most popular centerfire target rifle in America), protruding rifle handgrips (why?), long-range rifles (no .50 has EVER been used in a U.S. homicide), scaling back CHL licensure, etc. are examples, as such restrictions aren't aimed at criminal gun violence at all, but at circumscribing lawful ownership, either as a symbolic gesture, to give a sense of "doing something" about criminal violence, or whatever.

Gun owners rarely get credit for supporting compromise legislation, e.g. the armor-piercing ammunition ban of 1986, the NICS point-of-sale background check, CHL licensing requirements, the strict National Firearms Act restrictions on assault rifles and other automatic weapons, etc.

[jody]

26. sergeiAK, welcome to DU. You will find that patience is a virtue. n/t

[sergeiAK]

29. Not with him.

He has dodged questions everywhere they've been posted. I think he does not truly have any ideas or helpful thought, instead preferring to insult and criticize without offering anything productive.

Thanks for the welcome.

[Tejas]

30. "Dodging"

Stick around, you haven't seen anything yet.

;)

[jody]

31. DU has excellent functions including the following.

found at the top of every post.

Use it judiciously! :hi:

[L1A1Rocker]

44. Help

I see ignor, add buddy, pm, and profile. Don't see a following icon. Can you point me to it?

[L1A1Rocker]

32. Good post

I cannot disagree with it.

I can attest to the straw purchas as well. A collage friend of mine is an 03 dealer. He suspected a problem and called ATF on it. Their responce was to ask if the guy passed the NICS check. "yes", then the sale is ok, you are covered.

[SteveM]

51. We're already "sav[ing] kids' lives now."

From May, 2007 issue of Outdoor Life: "A new report from the National Safety Council indicates that accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows. and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly...Firearms-related fatalities fell 40 percent between 1995 and 2005, the greatest decrease in percentage of all measured types of accidental fatalities in the U.S."

Seems that gun-owners are already taking measures to make ownership in the home safer -- without putting "ten times the money into enforcement of our current laws..."

This stuff is out there, sandnsea. As for me, I keep a full-loaded revolver, unlocked and in the open, ready for self-defense within a few seconds.

[Old Codger]

23. Laws

just because the law hasn't eliminated all murder. That's a stupid argument.

Haven't eliminated death by anything and never will.... or speeding or stealing or etc.


We can require trigger locks, locked storage, tighter enforcement of gun sellers, all sorts of things. It is not a violation of any gun owners' rights to implement regulations in the same manner we do to speech or any of the other civil rights.

Your message

Trigger locks and locked gun storage pretty much defeats the purpose of guns for personal protection, and is almost impossible to enforce without being able to search each and every household... Also would have to start with registration and that isn't going to happen in any way that would be realistic.

[beevul]

28. No one wants murder legal, but you are wrong on other counts.

"We can require trigger locks, locked storage, tighter enforcement of gun sellers, all sorts of things. It is not a violation of any gun owners' rights to implement regulations in the same manner we do to speech or any of the other civil rights."


Limitations ARE violations of rights. They just happen to be JUSTIFIED interferences. Not allowing a person to "yell fire in a crowded theater" for example, is an interference with the excercise of a constitutional right. A justified one at that.

Those pushing for those things...trigger locks, locked storage, tighter enforcement of gun sellers, all sorts of things...the burden falls on them to justify all those sorts of limitations on the rights of people.

Perhaps you can explain why a person should have to have a trigger lock in a home with no children present for example. And locked storage? Does a locked home count? You are proposing regulation...and by nature regulations have no exceptions. They are one size fits all. That means you are going to have to sell this stuff to people that it quite likely doesn't fit too well. Or temper it to fit better.

[Turbo Teg]

37. That's fine

You can mandate that trigger locks must be sold with the firearm as long as there is no law saying we have to use them, or keep them locked up when not in use, as a matter of fact, it is law that locks be given out with every handgun now. How do you propose we tighten the enforcement of gun sellers. Since I work in the industry, I'd like to know, because it seems we're pretty regulated already.

[L1A1Rocker]

41. That is actually part of the DC gun case right now

Once the trigger lock is removed (no matter the reason) in you home you are in violation of the DC law at that moment.

Very bad law.

[krispos42]

47. The major problem with gun deaths...

of the non-suicidal sort is that most of them are deliberate acts of murder. Very few children below the age of 10 are killed in gun accidents.

What's killing teens and early 20-somethings are other teens and early 20-somethings.


All or nearly all new guns come with either an internal key locking mechanism (it uses like a non-standard Allen or Torx-style wrench), a locking hardsided case (TSA approved), or an external lock like a trigger lock or cable lock. Safe-storage laws typically only are enforced after an incident but probably have at least some value. Gun safes exist now that make fast access easy, so going from totally safe to armed is no longer time-consuming.

Tighter enforcement of gun sellers I agree with 100%. The BATFE should be tracking guns recovered from crimes scenes to see how they got to the criminals and look for unusual patterns. Like "gee, this same guy's house had been robbed three times, each time of multiple handguns that all found there ways into gangbanger's hands!"

States should at minimum make it a law that if you sell somebody a gun in a private transaction you have to get and keep the buyer's name, address, and ID number for, say, 3 years.

It is not a violation of any gun owners' rights to implement regulations in the same manner we do to speech or any of the other civil rights.

It depends on the specific regulation. Not just for the Second, but all rights.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. These Montanans are very confused

If the Supreme Court rules in DC's favor, it means the states shall have the right to pass firearms regulation as each state sees fit.

Montana sees fit to allow "any person" to own a firearm. A Court ruling isn't going to change it.

[beevul]

8. The argument is...

"A collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Court would breach Montana's Compact with the United States, a contract entered into in 1889, a time when no authority seriously held a collective right view and therefore no part of the intent of the contracting parties."

Thats what they're saying anyway. I do not know enough about this "compact" between Montana and the US, to have much of any grasp of the situation...yet.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I don't see that as the issue

The question at hand is whether the District of Columbia, which in this instance may be treated as a state, has the right to pass its own legislation regarding firearms. If the court rules that there is no individual right to possess firearms, but only a collective right, then there is no federal issue concerning what laws DC passes. There would be no federal issue concerning Montana, either.

However, if the court rules that there is an individual right to possess firearms, this may overturn a lot more than just whatever DC statute is involved.

[beevul]

18. The particulars...

I believe the issue, is that you have restrictions on governmental power...namely the bill of rights.

Among those is the second amendment, which limits the governmental power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What Montana is saying, is that IF the court says that there is only a collective right, that theyre changing terms of the original compact.


Breach of contract or something of that nature.

I am not saying I agree, but thats my understanding of thier position.


"If the court rules that there is no individual right to possess firearms, but only a collective right, then there is no federal issue concerning what laws DC passes. There would be no federal issue concerning Montana, either.However, if the court rules that there is an individual right to possess firearms, this may overturn a lot more than just whatever DC statute is involved."

The decision iether way, will quite probably change the landscape legally and politically, likely forever.

[L1A1Rocker]

13. That SOUNDS reasonable BUT

What will happen if SCOTUS rules in DCs favor will be an open door for ANY gun control that the Feds pass.

So called assault weapon ban any one. Hell, with that kind of thumbs up from SCOTUS I doubt the Feds will continue the pretext of naming the bills for what they are not. It will be the "if the gun is black and scary it is now illegal law".

[Jack Rabbit]

20. I disagree

If the Court rules narrowly in DC's favor, it will just mean that a state (or DC) may pass any kind of firearms regulation it likes. In the case of Montana, that means recognizing an individual right to possess firearms, as per the Montana state constitution. Just because Montana recognizes such a right doesn't mean DC should as well.

As I said in my previous post, I would be more concerned about the Court ruling that there is an individual right which would invalidate all firearms regulations, such as assault gun bans, anywhere.

[Turbo Teg]

40. One can only

pray that we would get rid of all the stupid firearms regulations and bans. I want a real MP-5SD damnit!

[L1A1Rocker]

43. I'd be happy

with a crummy sten.

[Turbo Teg]

55. Hell

I'm probably gonna settle for an ingram if it doesn't get repealed by the time I'm done saving up for it.

[WWFZD]

16. If that's the case

then couldn't say West Virginia or Ohio pass "reasonable" restrictions on the right to be secure in your person? Could a state then back door their way into a total abortion ban? The way I see it the restrcitions placed on government authority in the BOR are not open to debate. I know we have, do, and will continue to do but that doesn't make it right.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. If I understand this case right

It is about whether DC can pass this kind of legislation. Therefore, the ruling would apply to legislation in West Virginia or Ohio or California, where I live, as well.

Could a state then back door their way into a total abortion ban?

Abortion is not a Second Amendment issue. Roe v. Wade is based on a right to privacy and is in that respect similar to Griswold v. Connecticut.

The way I see it the restrictions placed on government authority in the BOR are not open to debate.

The very question here is what does the Second Amendment mean. Whatever it says, unfortunately, it says poorly.

[beevul]

34. The particulars of the case...

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”








"The very question here is what does the Second Amendment mean. Whatever it says, unfortunately, it says poorly."

It really isn't that complicated. Its the second restriction on governmental power, in a long list of restrictions on governmental power. The preamble to the bill of rights confirms as much, but most people never read the preamble, or claim it doesn't mean anything.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. It says it poorly

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 can read that as one has the right to join the national guard (state militia) and bear arms. If that part about the militia were not there, it would be one simple sentence (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed) and I would read that as an individual right. If that is what it was meant to confer, why even mention the militia? An individual would have the right to possess a firearm regardless of his membership in the militia.

On the other hand, one would like to ask our Founding Fathers what is meant by these words. The first part of the sentence is certainly not an independent clause (there is no verb) and it isn't really a dependent clause (there is no preposition). It's just a sentence fragment. But they had some meaning for putting it there. What it means is not entirely clear. It's George W. Bush grammar.

[L1A1Rocker]

42. Please quote the 2A correctly

There is only ONE comma in the text of the 2A.

With regard to the definitions of people and militia you really need to look up what the definitions of the time was. Our language has evolved and some meanings have been modified of the last 200 years. If you do this the language is quite clear.

Also, the term people is clear in the BOR. You cannot use one definition of "people" in one amendment and a different definition in another amendment. It does not work that way. The definition of people must remain consistent throughout. To do otherwise only invites chaos.

You say that you would like to ask the founders what they meant. You don't need to ask as there are many papers written by the founder about what they meant. You just need to go read them and be willing to accept what they say.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Ahem

Please click here.

Spelling and punctuation have evolved quite a bit, too. In 1787 commas were used where you and I would find them unnecessary, even a nuisance.

This does not change that fact that the Second Amendment is a poorly constructed sentence or why a reference to a militia is there if the document was meant to convey an absolute individual right to bear arms.

[beevul]

56. Nonsense.

"I can read that as one has the right to join the national guard (state militia) and bear arms. If that part about the militia were not there, it would be one simple sentence (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed) and I would read that as an individual right. If that is what it was meant to confer, why even mention the militia? An individual would have the right to possess a firearm regardless of his membership in the militia."


What you aren't doing, is reading it as a restriction on governmental power. If you do, it can not be interpreted to limit the rights of the people. So while you might think you can "read that as one has the right to join the national guard", the amendment mentions nothing about joining or actually participating in anything, not to mention that there was no "national guard" nor any "militia act" when the Bill of rights was written.

In modern language it would read "Because a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".





Here are the facts:

All rights belong to the people. They are inherent.

The constitution and bill of rights do not GRANT rights, nor does government.

The bill of rights PROTECTS the rights of the people through restriction on governmental power.

The framers refer to the right to keep and bear arms as a right that existed before the bill of rights was written. Before state governments. Before federal governments.


A person, whom is interested in finding the truth of the matter, simply can NOT take those facts into consideration, and "read that as one has the right to join the national guard".

Sorry, but thats that.


"On the other hand, one would like to ask our Founding Fathers what is meant by these words. The first part of the sentence is certainly not an independent clause (there is no verb) and it isn't really a dependent clause (there is no preposition). It's just a sentence fragment. But they had some meaning for putting it there. What it means is not entirely clear. It's George W. Bush grammar."


Its called a justification clause. They are spelling out WHY its being enumerated.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. Contra

What you aren't doing, is reading it as a restriction on governmental power.

I am reading it as a restriction on the federal government from prohibiting ordinary citizens from possessing firearms at the national level. I am not reading it as conferring an absolute right every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess a firearm. Apparently Montana confers such a right in its Constitution, and I say fine and well. DC is a very different place than Montana. A person in possession of a firearm in Montana has a handy tool for ridding his livestock of varmints or shooting lame horses. A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance.

This discussion started with an article about some people in Montana fearing that a decision in favor of the District of Columbia would endanger the right granted to them under their state's constitution. I say that unless the Court really overreaches itself, it will not. I do not believe that the people of DC ought to be deciding for ranchers in Montana if its a good idea for them to possess firearms. I do not believe that the either the people nor the local government of the District of Columbia have any real intention to tell Montanans what to do with their firearms. Nor do I believe that Montana ranchers should be telling people in DC how they should deal with people who possess firearms or certain types of firearms there.

Its called a justification clause. They are spelling out WHY its being enumerated.

No other right enumerated in the Constitution has a justification clause. Why is this an exception? Why even mention a militia if the purpose of the giving the people an absolute, individual right to bear arms?

In modern language it would read "Because a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

If I were writing the Second Amendment, I would write it just as you have and still interpret it as I do.

[beevul]

73. Your spots are showing.

"I am reading it as a restriction on the federal government from prohibiting ordinary citizens from possessing firearms at the national level. I am not reading it as conferring an absolute right every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess a firearm. Apparently Montana confers such a right in its Constitution, and I say fine and well. DC is a very different place than Montana. A person in possession of a firearm in Montana has a handy tool for ridding his livestock of varmints or shooting lame horses. A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance."

All rights are absolute. What part of that don't you understand? They don't just come into existence with restrictions attached to them now do they?



They ARE however subject to interference by government, when there is a COMPELLING interest.


As to "A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance"...well thats just more nonsense.


Perhaps you can make the argument that where guns are currently banned, anyone with a gun is a "public nuisance", since by definition those persons would be criminals, but beyond that, thats just a steaming pantload.

"I do not believe that the either the people nor the local government of the District of Columbia have any real intention to tell Montanans what to do with their firearms. Nor do I believe that Montana ranchers should be telling people in DC how they should deal with people who possess firearms or certain types of firearms there."


People once said quite similar things about slaves and their owners too.



"No other right enumerated in the Constitution has a justification clause. Why is this an exception? Why even mention a militia if the purpose of the giving the people an absolute, individual right to bear arms?"


The other rights that have the words "the people" in them, all refer to an individual right of the people. Why is the second an exception for you? "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If it said "a well equipped salad bar, being necessary to the security of a well regulated buffet, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", would that mean in your mind that only people who bought and paid for the buffet, or are eating at the salad bar have the right to keep and bear arms?


"If I were writing the Second Amendment, I would write it just as you have and still interpret it as I do."


Then you would be someone that attempted to look like he/she supported an individual right to keep and bear arms, and did not.



Look. The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. It is NOT a restriction on the people, or the rights of the people.

"This discussion started with an article about some people in Montana fearing that a decision in favor of the District of Columbia would endanger the right granted to them under their state's constitution."

Actually, no. This discussion started with an article about some people in Montana pointing out that a COLLECTIVE RIGHTS ruling on the reading of the second amendment would place Montana in a position to legally Secede from the union.

[Jack Rabbit]

75. And you are showing

The other rights that have the words "the people" in them, all refer to an individual right of the people.

Your ability to beg the question.

Earlier, you said that if the Second Amendment were written today, it would have only one comma and a preposition, such as:

Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

If I wanted to confer this as an individual right, I would simply write:

The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

If it were a flat-out right, such as freedom of speech or religion, no reason need be given.

As to "A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance"...well thats just more nonsense.

Oh, really? How so? You're begging the question again.

Look. The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. It is NOT a restriction on the people, or the rights of the people.

This is more question-begging. Rather than argue your thesis, you assert it as a fact.

The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government. If a state government wants to pass a law to the effect that possession of firearms is for authorized personnel only, it may do so. Montana's constitution would prohibit any local ordinances restricting firearms.

States are sovereign from the federal government.

People once said quite similar things about slaves and their owners too.

Oh, please, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Actually, no. This discussion started with an article about some people in Montana pointing out that a COLLECTIVE RIGHTS ruling on the reading of the second amendment would place Montana in a position to legally Secede from the union.

Again, this is begging the question. Montana has no more right to secede from the Union than did South Carolina. Get a grip. Please don't assert Montana's "right" to secede when such a proposition is in dispute, at least from this quarter.

[beevul]

79. Can you read?

The other rights that have the words "the people" in them, all refer to an individual right of the people.

Your ability to beg the question.

In other words, you can not, or choose not to, refute what I said.

Earlier, you said that if the Second Amendment were written today, it would have only one comma and a preposition, such as:

Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

I did indeed:

"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."

http://billofrights.org/

The original bill of rights, signed by the states, had only a single comma, and read as above.

If I wanted to confer this as an individual right, I would simply write:

The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

If it were a flat-out right, such as freedom of speech or religion, no reason need be given.

As to "A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance"...well thats just more nonsense.

Oh, really? How so? You're begging the question again.

Yeah, and if you wanted to to make sure that right explicitly was not protected you'd say so too, would you not?

Or you'd say the right of the people enrolled in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", would you not?

Those little exercises of the written word work both ways, you see.

And now You say I'm begging the question again...well your right.

You made the claim that "A person in possession of a firearm in Washington, DC, or any other close urban environment, is a public nuisance", and Now I need to ask - Will you support that rather bizarre claim?


And by the way...Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution:

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.”

That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.

Would it mean something completely different if it was written like below?

"“The liberty of the press, being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish, his sentiments of any subject.”



What trickery of the written word or crafty contrived interpretation will it take to reconcile this?

Look. The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. It is NOT a restriction on the people, or the rights of the people.

This is more question-begging. Rather than argue your thesis, you assert it as a fact.

Your damned right I am asserting it as a fact. It SAYS SO in the preamble of the bill of rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.billofrights.org

Now, those aren't my words, I did not compose them. The framers did. IF you can torture some meaning out of them, contrary to what I say they mean, by all means, let hear it. Thats what people do when they attempt to refute what someone else says, you know? Are you intrested in doing that at all?

The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government. If a state government wants to pass a law to the effect that possession of firearms is for authorized personnel only, it may do so. Montana's constitution would prohibit any local ordinances restricting firearms.

States are sovereign from the federal government.

Thats nice and all, but thats not the discussion were having. Furthermore, DC is a federal jurisdiction, not a state, so whether true or not, it is NOT applicable to this discussion, nor is it applicable to any discussion of DC RE: the second amendment.

Please don't assert Montana's "right" to secede when such a proposition is in dispute, at least from this quarter.

I have NOT asserted Montana's right to do anything. Montana has.

[jody]

7. I've posted repeatedly that PA (1776) and VT (1777) constitutions say

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable (VT says unalienable) rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Because RKBA is an inalienable/unalienable right, it's impossible for PA and VT citizens to have given away RKBA when they ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Either RKBA is protected by the 2nd Amendment as an enumerated right or RKBA is protected by the 9th Amendment as an unenumerated right.

That's also what Montana is saying.

[beevul]

9. In researching...

In researching this specific event, I have heard mention of other states (none by name) that may be in the same position, and argue similarly to Montana.

Is it possible that PA and VT are among them?

[jody]

10. I don't know but IMO PA has a rock solid case because PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790

and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Of all the states, Pennsylvania was the first to clearly define the right to defend self, property, and state and said it was one of the “natural, inherent and inalienable rights”. In PA’s section on Rights, it clarified that right by saying “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.

All other state constitutions postdate PA's.

SCOTUS has ignored RKBA under the 14th Amendment but if PA were to win on subject issue, then every state would also be protected. Of course that's just my opinion.

[L1A1Rocker]

11. I hope that SCOTUS gets it right.

I really don't want to move to Montana. It's just too cold up there.

[SteveM]

81. The Fourteenth Amendment was cited in Heller...

Was it www.georgiacarry.com ? At any rate, if an individual right is recognized, I can't help but see the 14th Amendment as the 800 lb. gorilla the remaining locales of gun-prohibition will face.

[L1A1Rocker]

83. I think your right

I cannot fault your logic.

[Lex1775]

45. Weren't we just talking about the unintended consequences of this in another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x157879#157918

[jbsjohn]

86. he is a brave man

I have to read the decision closely to see how much of a win or loss for freedom this decision is. I'm cautiously optimistic right now, but I want to see the standard of review and the rest of this before I can call this a victory. So i can only say that "he is a brave man".
-----------------
Jbsjohn

[iverglas]

87. as were you!

Died with yer boots on? Went down shooting, anyhow, I guess.

Ah, another opportunity to stroll through the garden of memories ... the corpse-littered battlefield of the Guns forum.