This court (as many other courts are) is big on Stare decisis. Since the contract between Montana and the United States is well over 100 years old it would constitute settled law which held that RKBA/2nd Amendment is an individual right.
If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???
- Thread starter evan price
- Start date
- Status
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
If the feds are attacking people who want to peacefully secede who'd really be the bad guys?
Foreign countries? Russia, China, N. Korea, most of the middle east...
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well that's a tough question frankly. It's clearly illegal to secede, and a violation of the Constitution to do so.
So is violating the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
It would put BOTH entities at odds with the Constitution, a lose-lose situation of course.
I really think at the end of the day the Supremes will uphold the lower courts decision with very little dealt with outside of "the question".
Always remember, there is ONLY one question in front of this court.
41magsnub
Member
I love this, makes be proud to be a native Montanan.
sacp81170a
Member
Guys, launching the nukes would require the cooperation of people outside those states. Even if the enabling codes and launch votes were properly sent to the missiles, any higher command authority could cancel the commands. It's a moot point. The worst thing the states could do if they were to secede would be to mess with the nuclear forces. That would not only invite massive retaliation, it would justify it. No, better to let that sleeping dog lie and assure the Feds that they wouldn't be interfered with.
That said, I'm proud of Montana. Reminds me of the sheriff of Big Horn County in Wyoming.
Ah, here's an article about the case:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0021.htm
Looks like we could use more people like this and the people of Montana.
That said, I'm proud of Montana. Reminds me of the sheriff of Big Horn County in Wyoming.
Ah, here's an article about the case:
http://www.gunowners.org/op0021.htm
Looks like we could use more people like this and the people of Montana.
Last edited:
41magsnub
Member
Ya think? Calm down there dude, nobody smart enough to even start on that would even consider it.
41magsnub
Member
Anybody talking about nukes as part of a secession is not welcome here. Better?
Last edited:
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
I don't think even with secession it'd come to nukes, but they'd make a great tool for bargaining purposes.
And as for:
According to Amendment 10 of the Constitution it is not, because it is not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution. It is quite legal. Whether or not the feds would tolerate secession is another matter, legal or not. That's what the issue would be...and something we can't know the outcome of now.
And as for:
According to Amendment 10 of the Constitution it is not, because it is not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution. It is quite legal. Whether or not the feds would tolerate secession is another matter, legal or not. That's what the issue would be...and something we can't know the outcome of now.
sacp81170a
Member
I wasn't getting upset, merely adding some reality to the discussion.
There were a few people getting started on something based on some really faulty assumptions. I merely provided a reality check.
Glad to hear it.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
A violation of what part of the Constitution?
Gunnerpalace
Member
They (the gov) might nuke civvies just to make a point. Get it driven in to Sheeple not to fight drink your kool-aid and watch dancing with the stars and we wont take you out.
Think of this if they pass a law (follow me for a second here) saying "all guns will be confiscated" other countries will hear that and they might get ideas.
Think of this if they pass a law (follow me for a second here) saying "all guns will be confiscated" other countries will hear that and they might get ideas.
sacp81170a
Member
?????? If it ever comes to that, then we're all done for, all bets are off and the guys who would do it would know that. I think that's an extremely unlikely scenario. I really think the best Montana would be able to do would be a semi-autonomy. Limit the authority of Federal Agents in their territory, make them abide by the Montana Constitution as well as local laws, and agree not to claim sovereignty. That might be doable.
If they actually start confiscating guns(and I don't think they will, just stop selling new ones and ammunition) Then seceding would probably become an option.
I have faith in the system however, not that they'll get behind the second, but I think a monkey could figure out that it's an indivual right
I have faith in the system however, not that they'll get behind the second, but I think a monkey could figure out that it's an indivual right
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
Study operation Northwoods...
JerryM
Member
Secede? Nonsense.
Jerry
Jerry
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I would think a coup removing the errant Congress Critters would be much more efficient. Those people are the ones who call the shots on the national level for they declare war, make the laws that disarm the people, and create all the jack booted thug agencies they themselves hide behind.
The several states may or may not cooperate depending upon which states rely the heaviest upon federal aid and which states always end up forking over the funds that pay the aid.
I do not think dismantling the Union is the best course owing to the disruption it would cause internationally and the opportunities it would present to all those jealous governments out there that covet our land, existing infrastructure, and other resources. We need to maintain the forces that will keep the rest of the world at bay while we iron out all the wrinkles and creases in the Constitution put there by these many years of liberalism, litigiousness, dumbing down, welfare, socialism, zero tolerance, corruption, overzealous environmentalism, and globalism.
The Court has the opportunity to place trust back where it belongs: Not trust of the government by the people, but trust of the people by the government. (The people should never trust the government, must always remain vigilant, and ride that beast more tightly reigned than a Brahman bull towing a cart through a herd of cows.)
Dividing the Union into two or more distinct countries sure looks attractive, but should that be done, it needs to be done peacefully if possible. But, there is no need. Strict compliance with the Constitution by the Union will place most of what the Union has usurped from the states back into the purview of the several states where it belongs; where the individual states may decide for themselves how much socialism, overzealous environmentalism, welfare, and nanny-ism they desire and can afford on their own. The Union should only do those things it was created for in the first place: Protect our rights as individuals, protect the several states from invasion, deliver the mail, build roads, regulate(not limit or prohibit) commerce between the states and foreign nations etc., coin our money, and provide a fair system of justice, etc.
A righteous decision out of the Court on Heller will go a long way to ensuring that there is the opportunity to preserve the Union as it was and is meant to be: The land of freedom, self reliance, and opportunity.
Basically, we need to fix the head rather than chop it off. It has gotten far too big for the shoulders it's trying to sit upon.
Woody
Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood
The several states may or may not cooperate depending upon which states rely the heaviest upon federal aid and which states always end up forking over the funds that pay the aid.
I do not think dismantling the Union is the best course owing to the disruption it would cause internationally and the opportunities it would present to all those jealous governments out there that covet our land, existing infrastructure, and other resources. We need to maintain the forces that will keep the rest of the world at bay while we iron out all the wrinkles and creases in the Constitution put there by these many years of liberalism, litigiousness, dumbing down, welfare, socialism, zero tolerance, corruption, overzealous environmentalism, and globalism.
The Court has the opportunity to place trust back where it belongs: Not trust of the government by the people, but trust of the people by the government. (The people should never trust the government, must always remain vigilant, and ride that beast more tightly reigned than a Brahman bull towing a cart through a herd of cows.)
Dividing the Union into two or more distinct countries sure looks attractive, but should that be done, it needs to be done peacefully if possible. But, there is no need. Strict compliance with the Constitution by the Union will place most of what the Union has usurped from the states back into the purview of the several states where it belongs; where the individual states may decide for themselves how much socialism, overzealous environmentalism, welfare, and nanny-ism they desire and can afford on their own. The Union should only do those things it was created for in the first place: Protect our rights as individuals, protect the several states from invasion, deliver the mail, build roads, regulate(not limit or prohibit) commerce between the states and foreign nations etc., coin our money, and provide a fair system of justice, etc.
A righteous decision out of the Court on Heller will go a long way to ensuring that there is the opportunity to preserve the Union as it was and is meant to be: The land of freedom, self reliance, and opportunity.
Basically, we need to fix the head rather than chop it off. It has gotten far too big for the shoulders it's trying to sit upon.
Woody
Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood
sacp81170a
Member
Hijacking a plane and blowing up a ship under false flag operations are quite different from intentionally detonating a nuke on one's own soil. The consequences of either of the former actions being found out would more than likely be a quick scandal, a show trial and an even quicker cover up by the news media. The consequences of the latter would(and should) be open revolt. That's my opinion, but it's worth as much as anyone else's.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Wow...do you really believe that?
secession is very possible. Seizing of nukes and a good deal of military arms and having the support of those that can use it is very possible. Mobilizing to repel anything sent in from DC is very possible.
That is why if a secession were to occur, the government would imply sanctions, cut funds, and other things to try and starve the idea from the seceders. Now, if Texas through Montana along with other states like may be Georgia and Florida with their more-or-less gun-friendly pre-emption, then there could be a huge chance that we can preserve not only the right to own guns, but to own whatever guns we deem as reasonable (or that the states do). Either way, it will be a sour compromise rather than a war.
That is why if a secession were to occur, the government would imply sanctions, cut funds, and other things to try and starve the idea from the seceders. Now, if Texas through Montana along with other states like may be Georgia and Florida with their more-or-less gun-friendly pre-emption, then there could be a huge chance that we can preserve not only the right to own guns, but to own whatever guns we deem as reasonable (or that the states do). Either way, it will be a sour compromise rather than a war.
I don't think people were ever speaking of nuking our own country. I believe it was mentioned that if a state were to capture the nukes inside it would deter forced reunionization, more of cold war mutually assured destruction type of thing. Frankly, if the US went to nuclear war with itself there would be almost nothing left for the winner to claim and this discussion would be moot.
In any event, I am resigning myself from this thread as it has gone way way off the deep end!
In any event, I am resigning myself from this thread as it has gone way way off the deep end!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Montana might try to secede on paper, but I highly doubt the people of Montana will be wholly on board with the notion.
If folks did try to seize the nukes, then you can be certain that there would be a full military action to stop such attempts and Montana would lose. To think otherwise would be naive.
- Status