Montana to SCOTUS: Don't you dare!

[rpm]

Originally posted by Donzo
How does it look that way?

Have they (SCOTUS) ruled that "the Second Amendment merely gives the power to the state to arm its National Guard"?

Do you have some inside information that indicates that they (SCOTUS) will rule this way?

Donzo, read my post right before yours. I misread the original link and thought the collective arguement was the SCOTUS ruling.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Airscrew
The National Defense Act of 1916 ,  1889 to 1916, so yes decades as in more than one... 27 years, two decadeS

really?

lets get the full quote there you snipped off "existed"

"it was also decades before any kind of national guard act existed."

"Before the passage of the Dick Act, militia affairs had been handled by the various bureaus of the War Department, as the subject dictated. But the 1903 act authorized, for the first time, the creation of a separate section responsible for National Guard affairs."
 
This act made the militias the national guard


you were saying?

[lazs2]

bingie..   sorry to interrupt your snatching at straws in defense of taking away our rights but...

the actual wording of the Montana state constitution was written decades before any form of national guard existed.. the contract with the state by the feds was decades before any national guard act..

Even if it was a week tho.. it rips your "collective rights" (no rights at all) sillyness a new one.

Fact is.. the feds knew what Montana's constitution said and by compacting with them they were saying that it fit in with the federal constitution.  they recognized it.

lazs

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Bingolong
really?

lets get the full quote there you snipped off "existed"

"it was also decades before any kind of national guard act existed."

"Before the passage of the Dick Act, militia affairs had been handled by the various bureaus of the War Department, as the subject dictated. But the 1903 act authorized, for the first time, the creation of a separate section responsible for National Guard affairs."
 
This act made the militias the national guard


you were saying?

Bing, I aint going to get in a snipping contest with ya... read what you want to read, comprehend what you like, intrepret it anyway you like... If the only argument you got is whether Laz says decade or decades you... well,  got no argument...

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
bingie..   sorry to interrupt your snatching at straws in defense of taking away our rights but...

the actual wording of the Montana state constitution was written decades before any form of national guard existed.. the contract with the state by the feds was decades before any national guard act..

Even if it was a week tho.. it rips your "collective rights" (no rights at all) sillyness a new one.

Fact is.. the feds knew what Montana's constitution said and by compacting with them they were saying that it fit in with the federal constitution.  they recognized it.

lazs

 I see a little back tracking will clear it up you said any type of

hehe the actual wording hehe okay lazie, like i said let them succeed.
you will have a place to go where you'll have nothing to ***** about. I doubt that will suit you though.
 14 years till the Dick act does not make decades and it makes the militia/national guard the feds.

your wrong again , par for the course

[lazs2]

bingie.. just declaring yourself right does not make it so.

still.. the Montana state constitution was in effect decades before any type of national guard.  The COMPACT with the feds came in and then the national guard act came 14 years latter.    this is only a decade and a half but.. the latter is not what I was referring to.. I was referring to the former..

It matters not tho..the simple fact that the montana constitution existed before any kind of national guard was even wet dreamed about.. and 100 years before you read your first idiotic "collective rights" (no rights at all) paper.

All your arguements hinge on there being no clear language that didn't include a militia (which is wrong) and that militia means.. national guard..but..  the states had constitutions long before any national guard and did not even bother with saying they needed a militia to affirm the god given right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves.

No matter how you look at it..  anti gun rights folks like yourself don't have a leg to stand on.   That is not to say you can't win.. only that you can't come up with any logical arguement to win with.

oh.. and to be nit picky... it is "you are" or "you're" "wrong yet again"  not "your wrong yet again.."  

so..  you are wrong yet again.

lazs