If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, it may be chest-thumping, but it made me smile. Might as well have said:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and

2. That the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms are both statements securing a preexisting right from government interference, and do not confer any boon of government upon the people; and

3. Molon labe, chumps."
 
Fella's;

It's a pleasant sunny day here in Montana. The gophers are up, the shooting is starting. The populace is getting ready to exercise it's right to the second amendment in droves.

Oh, and we are so sorry that if you cut funds, we'll be unable to plow, or otherwise maintain I-15 & I-90. Those who aren't transplants have 4WD vehicles & the transplants either go home or obtain one.:neener:

:evil: 900F
 
Raggedy edge of the 'verse, heh--shiny. :cool:

There are two other things that could happen if the Court sells out and goes collective-right in Heller:

The first is that someone in Congress will introduce a new version of the Second Amendment, constructed so as to remove all doubt as to the guarantee of a pre-existing individual natural right. Getting 67 votes in the Senate might be the mischief, but I like its chances if it can get out of Congress and to the legislatures of the several states.

The second possibility is that a Constitutional Convention could get a whole lot closer, a whole lot quicker. That would be my preference, actually. The way things are in general, I'd be willing to roll the dice on a Constitutional Convention.
 
Last edited:
The way things are in general, I'd be willing to roll the dice on a Constitutional Convention.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of shaking things up so as to get them fixed myself, but I put this question to you:

Who do you think is -really- in a better position to exploit chaos to their advantage? Us or the bad guys?
 
If, as many fear, another false flag "terrorist" attack occurs, and martial law is imposed (including gun confiscation), then all bets are off. I would not be surprised if Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alberta, BC, and Alaska form the nucleus of a new free nation, but not without a lot of grief.
 
There is, as I recall, a resoundingly negative precedent regarding the right of states to secede.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing state secession. I understand Lincoln's desire to hold the union together. Never the less, he is still the biggest war criminal and abuser of Presidential authority in US history. I fully support Montana's right to secede if the people of the state choose to do so.
-
 
Montana was on my short list of states to move to. Now, it's just moved to #1 on the list.

(By the way, theoretically any state can succede from the union, but it does boil down to force of arms)

Montana likely wouldn't succede, but (provided her citizens were feeling froggy), they might thumb their nose at the fedgov, and then say, "Fine, we don't need federal funding of highways."

It doesn't get serious unless MT decides to say "Hey, citizens of Montana, you know federal income tax? You don't have to pay that until the Supremes make the right ruling."

That happens, this'll get bloody.

Expect several of the Western states to make a weak stand to federal power, especially with Democratic sweeps.

If a serious, and strong AWB comes out of Washington, with a possibility of confiscations.... that could result in succession, but even then, it's a longshot.
 
The way I see it....

Any state can secede from the union, this right is guaranteed by the second amendment as follows:

1) State secedes from the union after contract (i.e. the U.S. Constitution) is violated by the union
2) The union responds, "No, you can't leave us!"
3) Only way the union can enforce such a statement is through military action.
4) The second amendment (in either individual rights or collective rights theories) ensures the state (at the time of the succession) has means to defend itself from the tyranny of any oppressor.

Notice how the above events make sense in abstraction then apply them to the occurrence of the civil war.

States rights were being stepped on by the northern abolitionists. The south seceded, so the union stepped up with military force and the south had means to fight it. The south only rejoined the union after being conquered, so that it was now subject to the rules implemented (without their consent) during the conflict (part of surrender). I am curious if the south could have remained a 'territory' of the the United States after the war instead of having state-hood reinstated. They probably did not bother because loss of statehood somehow is even worse than loss of (the power of) states rights.

Many people on this site believe that the second amendment is to ensure the states the right to protect themselves against the union. Clearly, such protection could only be ennacted by succession. You cannot both be part of a country and be at war with that same country. It would be like that movie fight club, where all along the only person you were punching in the face was you.
 
Last edited:
(By the way, theoretically any state can succede from the union, but it does boil down to force of arms)
Click to expand...

Bingo. We have a winner.

Every group of people in the history of mankind has had the right to self determination. Period. The fine print on that warranty is that you have to be willing to pay for it in blood.

The question is; is there any LEGAL group in the US that has the stones to face a modern military for the right to start over with nothing but their principles and the graves of their fallen?

It’s far easier to vote responsibly every coupe of years than face live fire. And precious few seem willing to do the former. I don’t bet too heavily on the latter. So my bet is, “No.” At least not in the foreseeable future. And if the slope stays this slippery, when there IS enough who are willing, will they have the means?

But it does my dark heart good that SOMEONE in and official capacity stood up and said to SCOTUS, “This isn’t fire you have boys and girl. This is an 800 pound gorilla in charge a bunch of monkeys pressing on the keypad of a nuke. Currently, that big guy is punching the big read button ‘casue he thinks he’ll get a banana. It may not go off today… but rest assured, someday, one of those hairy little buggers is gonna hit the right sequence. Think very carefully about your next actions.”

I bet it doesn’t do much good. But hey… nothing like being able to say, “I told you so.”
 
President Bush was quick to recognize Kosovo's secession from Serbia. Do you think he'd be as quick to recognize Montana's secession?
:scrutiny:
 
If the Second Amendment is construed to mean that the only federal protection of the RKBA is as it relates to a select militia, how does that impact the contract with Montana? The Second Amendment never applied to Montana anyway. And the federal government would still not have gun control powers over Montana.
 
secession is not nice

im guessing, like when Norway secceeded from sweden (or was it denmark!? :O) the fedral army would come a knocking...
 
No one is going to send an armed force to battle MT if it does secede. It will be handled by lawmakers and courts and take years. Some ND Chief declared secession from the US and I haven't heard tell that the big dawg CIA did away with him (Russel Something). Personally, I think MT is on its way to secede eventually just judging by the last years past bills and laws. If it does, one can expect a few more states to go in that direction. Maybe it's time Liberals and Conservatives parted ways.
 
SCOTUS will find it to be an individual right...subject to reasonable restrictions.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely correct. The real battle is going to be over the standard of review. Is it strict scrutiny or something less, as argued by the U.S. If it is anything less than strict scrutiny, this lays the groundwork for a lot of bad laws.
 
I find it ironic that, despite the disdain given Montana (and people from Montana) from the media and the general East and West Coast populaces, they still seem to give Montana a (possibly disproportionate) stature in the "places where the people have cojones and can shoot straight".

(eg. the Montana Guard being mentioned at the end of the Terminator 3 movie; Sniper with Berringer - he was from Montana; and I'm sure there are quite a few others.)

States like Wyoming and Texas also seem to get this priviledge...

As for Montana seceding from the nation? I think it'll happen. Not today or tomorrow, but within this generation or that of the current young. I think there will be many other states to secede eventually, and what we know as the "US Federal Government" won't have much to do with it, per se. Maybe the UN or the NAU, but not the USG.

The way I see it, Wyoming, Montana, and maybe Saskatchewan and Alberta along with them. Maybe Utah; maybe Idaho; maybe parts of North and/or South Dakota - it's hard to say, because I think that many of the "refactioning" won't be along current state borders, but on regional cultural borders.

For instance, ND and SD would, IMO, be more likely to be divided into East and West Dakota, not only because of the river splitting the states, but because of fairly significant cultural differences between the East half and West half of the respective states.

Simply put, there's either going to be a migration of liberals from rural areas and conservatives from urban areas as things get respectively "worse", according to given world views. There'll be some outlier "grey" or "purple" areas, but I think for the most part the lines will be drawn, and there will either be civil war or there will be national voluntary division. Throw in external pressures (Mexico, China, Russia, the middle east/muslims, globalism) and it's not going to be pretty.
 
Balkanization is not a smooth road. Would make some Y2K scenarios pale by comparison. We'll know in a month or four. Let's hope the road is smooth and the path clear.
 
Thus spake geekwitha.45:

I like the idea of shaking things up so as to get them fixed myself, but I put this question to you: Who do you think is -really- in a better position to exploit chaos to their advantage? Us or the bad guys?
Click to expand...

A fair point, but one that can be remedied. In the end, in fact, I think it could lead to the peaceful (or at least minimally violent) dissolution of the Republic as presently configured...which would, after all, be a solution. I doubt either side could get enough states to ratify a Constitution of their preference.
 
Great work Montana. If you don't stand up for your rights, it's unlikely that anyone else will either.

If Montana actually secedes as a result of this case, I would bet there would be other States that would follow... TX, UT, VT, etc...

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
 
It seems to me the issue of collective vs individual was settled in 1889 when Montana the Union. The U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms. Seems to me that Montana's Compact With the United States is defacto settled law at the highest level.
 
Despite the rugged individualist rhetoric, Montana would never want to secede from the U.S. because the financial benefits they currently receive from federal spending far exceeds what they contribute in federal taxes. Montana receives $1.47 in federal spending for every $1 they pay in federal taxes. This is a huge subsidy.
 
Montana receives $1.47 in federal spending for every $1 they pay in federal taxes. This is a huge subsidy.
Click to expand...

I am fairly confident that the money saved from no longer paying those taxes could be used in a more gainful venture.

I will start looking for some "Come Live and Work in Montana!" literature to strategically lay around the house...to kinda grease the slides with the ole' lady.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Montana Claims U.S. Promised State Individual Gun Rights
Replies
3
Views
433
lacoochee
L
M
  • Locked
Montana Firearm's Freedom Act
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
husbandofaromanian
H
T
  • Locked
MT Freedom Firearms Act - Nullification of Federal Regs?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Carbon Helix
C
T
  • Locked
Supreme Court is taking the Heller Case - per NRA email
Replies
0
Views
401
thegriz
T
L
  • Locked
House resolution in support of Heller decision.
Replies
11
Views
880
ServiceSoon
S
Back
Top