If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???

[goon]

Last I checked Montana is landlocked. They'd be surrounded on at least three sides by a hostile force and I doubt Canada would be much help at best. Sounds like a bad situation to be in to me.

Still, they got some major cajones just for standing up and making their point of view clear and they have my respect for that.

 

[LAK Supply]

Hostile force on 3 sides? I hardly think Idaho, North and South Dakota, or us here in Wyoming are really to be considered "hostile." In fact, except for the current water issue, we like our northern neighbors.

 

[lawdogso]

Dang....Nukes? Army invading Montana? End of the world? Hostile Forces? Will NATO be there also? Wow...

 

[bl4ckd0g]

Montana was already invaded by hordes of retirees from liberal states. I occasionally hear the term "Boze-angeles" and other creative outbursts aimed towards the displaced Californian tree-huggers.

State-level civil disobedience towards the Heller judgment is more plausible than outright secession.

Also, I'd only consider Canada hostile if they enlist a legion of Newfies to drink the entire state of Montana under the table. It would be a close battle.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Interesting thread.

Putting aside how much security goes into protecting our nukes, if we entertain the possibility that a secessionist group got control of one or more, aiming them at American cities is not the biggest threat.

Simply firing one is.

Think about it for a minute: Where are those missiles aimed right now? Russia? China? Pyongyang? Resetting the coordinates has got to be extremely complicated, involving a great many people in different locations. But short-circuiting the firing controls so that fuel flows to the rocket engines won't be that hard. When that rocket starts its trajectory over the Pole, do you think President Whatsisname is going to convince the Chinese President-for-life that the warhead isn't live? Or that there really is no need to retaliate in case it does go BOOM? Which do you think is the biggest threat to the powers in Washington, the destruction of Boston, or the destruction of Beijing?

MAD is still a viable road to apocalypse.

 

[bl4ckd0g]

On a more serious note, there was an attempt in the 1970's in Alaska as a means to be resource independent w/ gold and oil. The Alaskan Independence Party leader, Joe Vogler, was conveniently murdered in a botched home burglary.

In spite of the 2nd amendment leanings, there is a large amount of oil yet to be extracted in Eastern Montana from the Red River and Bakken formations. The oilfied that was once limited to the Williston and Sidney areas have been stretched 120 miles to the south.

 

[george29]

I personally believe that if and when, or when and if, certain states decide to secede, it will be only after the total and complete breakdown of a viable central gov. In that case, I don't see anything more than a war of words between the states. I actually think it possible that I may live to see it happen, albeit from the safe confines of my wheelchair at the old folks home, that, or some form of allegiance to a one world government. A toss of the coin tells me its possible, even plausible, not probable.

 

[tjdUSCG]

In this day and age even robert e lee could not hold out for longer than a year without some sort of air power.

I can think of a couple hot and sandy places that would provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[qwert65]

I can think of a couple hot and sandy places that would provide evidence to the contrary.

Only because 1 they get outside help, Iran, pakistan 2 they are in cities, can terrorize a poupulace that we're trying to help. 3 we haven't fought a no holds bar war(look what happened in fallujah when the army/marines got serious)

 

[Titan6]

Putting aside the unlikelyhood of Montanna pulling out there are some interesting things to note:

- There is no prohibition against seceeding from the union

- The southern states seceeded because of slavery. They were not attacked until they attacked a federal fort though. While the reasonings given in their resolutions were terrible ones had they gone about it differently things might have been different.

- The fact that they chose a national polarizing issue that most people had strong feelings about hurt a lot. The anti's mostly are a "not in my back yard group" type group. The few nationally organized groups are poorly run and inept. Most people have no clue what the laws are in different states (or even that the laws are different). They can't get excited about being opposed to people in Mt. having their own gun laws. Certainly not on a National level.

- No way MT could win against the US in any kind of martial confrontation

 

[Thin Black Line]

Good Job, Montana!

Looks like this is the place where the last of the real Americans have started
to make a stand and say NO to the forces that long ago staged a silent coup
in this country on behalf of the NWO.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

No way MT could win against the US in any kind of martial confrontation

Is it as loss when you die a free man? I think not.

Looks like this is the place where the last of the real Americans have started to make a stand and say NO to the forces that long ago staged a silent coup in this country on behalf of the NWO.

If push comes to shove, I don't think Montana will have to stand alone, though.

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

 

[evan price]

Operation Northwoods was just one of many.

Check out Operation Garden Plot. Operation Lantern Spike. Operation Noble Eagle (Rolled on in 9/11/01). Talk about total disregard for Posse Comitatus..

Then if you want a real cold shower look up REX-84. This is part of the FEMA Continutation of Operations planning (COOP).

REX84 was (IS!) a plan in the face of massive civil unrest (such as possible secession???) that involved martial law, suspension of the Constitution, wholesale arrests of civilian populations and large-scale population relocation. Lists are kept of certain persons who would be on the top of the roundup list for a REX-84 style situation- in the early 70's it was the "ADEX" list.

Ever hear of the FEMA concentration camps? Boxcars with shackles?

Look it up.

Everybody worries about CIA, NSA, Etc. as the shadowy puppet masters.

FEMA is your real worry. They are a LOT more than just the schmucks who screwed up Katrina. Why did they do such a bad job with Katrina?

Simple.

Helping citizens through disasters is NOT their primary responsibility.

Some may say my tinfoil hat is too tight.

That's fine.

Just look around and learn. Decide for yourself.

 

[evan price]

double

 

[evan price]

triple

Sorry, there is a delay or something on my end. New posts don't show up even with refreshing.

 

[Titan6]

Quote:
No way MT could win against the US in any kind of martial confrontation

Is it as loss when you die a free man? I think not.

Not at all. But what I am saying is that the state itself would not survive. The Federal government does not humor itself with disrespect

 

[RP88]

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.

actually, thinking that full military action would be used is what is really naive, just like thinking that there would be a nuke-up of the US or a full-scale war. Like I said, it would be a huge political cluster(bleep) of people cutting off Montana, the media going wild, and a sour compromise bringing them back in after they find out that they need funding or because of other pressure. It wouldnt have a chance to work out a favorable compromise unless several other states joined in. Most wont, if any. it would still be quite a show, though.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Not at all. But what I am saying is that the state itself would not survive. The Federal government does not humor itself with disrespect

I agree. But, the lack of humility on the part of those in government who are actively usurping the Constitution will not make them any less likely to suffer. You see, any such conflict will be, of necessity, fought on more than the front lines. Standing behind a battle front is no protection for anyone on any side in a conflict. If I were in Congress - or on the Court for that matter, or in the Executive - I'd be very conscious of Henry Waxman's fear of a populace stripped of their rights; whether I fostered it or simply stood by and let it happen.

We're talking freedom here. We're talking the future of our kids.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[MarcusWendt]

times like this i look over at cold, cold montana with just a little envy...

You and me both.

 

[Ash]

Titan, you are wrong as to the cause of Secession. You were also wrong about the start of the war. While I do think it would have been wise for PGT Beauregard to not have fired on Sumter as surrender was about to take place on the 15th, the firing on the 12th occurred because of a resupply floatilla's arrival nearby. Warning of this fleet's approach was sent by Lincoln to Governor Pickens of South Carolina. Lincoln wrote "This must he done peaceably if possible; if not, by force, as the governor might choose." In other words, the US forces would fight their way into the southern port and resupply the fort in SC territory.

With the arrival of the ships, which were to enter "by force," Confederate forces presumed the battle was at hand and so fired upon the fort. If you find an enemy army on your soil who have come with the warning of force, their presence on your soil is already an act of war. US Naval ships, coming on orders to enter by force, in South Carolina waters, were already an act of war. That Beauregard fired first is not debatable, but neither is the arrival of armed US ships in South Carolina waters.

Who started the war, however, is debatable.

In any case, I do not wish to cause this discussion to become a flame war or anything of the like. However, the causes of the war are not so plain as taught in the North. Read up on the causes from many sources before you make a decision.

Ash

 

[Wineoceros]

Last I checked Montana is landlocked.

So is Switzerland.

They'd be surrounded on at least three sides by a hostile force

Which 3 of Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota do you feel would harbor the most hostility toward Montana?

 

[hitbackfirst]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies [STATES]; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [US GOVERNMENT] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States...

 

[langenc]

I wonder how many posters on this thread have a clause in their STATE Constitution regarding 'bearing or arms' for defense of self and family?? Have you checked lately. When you get into a discussion with folks and they throw the part about 'individual v militia' at you just respond "well what about the STATE constitution"??? that says......!

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Hitbackfirst, you are such a radical!

Actually I think we could do something more like this

 

[Thernlund]

More from real attorneys.

Forget that Montana is special argument. The Constitution means the same thing throughout the country. As the supreme law of the land, it trumps anything in any statute, any enabling act, any treaty, any contract. There could be something in the Montana enabling act that guarantees its citizens greater rights to bear arms than are guaranteed by the second amendment, sure. But Congress could not do anything in 1889 to alter or evade or define whatever the second amendment itself means.

There can be no secession. The Civil War settled that. "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

I have heard about some weird stuff in some statehood admissions agreements. Like Texas supposedly has the right to subdivide into five states or something if it wanted to. I have no idea if this stuff is enforceable.

The actual issue in Heller is very interesting and debatable. It will be a split decision. I think the individual rights people might win. What is politically weird is you have the left-wingers who have advocated broad interpretations of every constitutional right for the past 50 years---and if you are consistent, that would mean broad individual rights under the second amendment. There are even some prominent liberal-Democrat constitutional scholars who concede that, yes, their own prior positions would indicate that the gun owners should win this one.

I can understand most would take any anonymous quote with a grain of salt (and I can't reveal identities). But knowing this guy, I can tell you that for my part, when he talks I listen.

Another attorney said...

If USSC rules for “collective” it means no Fed Const right of individuals to bear arms. That would allow states to make individual decisions on how to regulate. Massachusetts might ban guns, Montana would not. Any state with a state constitutional protection for bearing arms would still have that rule in tact and could only change by amending its own const.

Your question is only raised if following USSC “collective” ruling, Congress passes a federal statute banning guns. Then question is does that statute override state constitutional protections that were in effect prior to the new federal statute.

Good point I think.


-T.