Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bsdaddict on February 20, 2008, 11:36:01 AM
-
Full resolution here (http://progunleaders.org/resolution.html)
supporting argument here (http://progunleaders.org/argument.html)
WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;
WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;
WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;
............
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.........
4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller.
this should be interesting. if the scotus takes the collective rights view, MT will consider that a breach of contract and reserves "all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law." can't really sue the fedgov for damages, what else is left? secession?
-
hmmm the next Civil War, East against West? NorthEast, South, South West, Plains against MidWest, NorthEast, East?
-
I like this argument..
Militia Act of 1903 was the beginning of the National Guard and directed the federalization of the National Guard. "The National Defense Act of 1916 … transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term 'National Guard' mandatory".[16] Since the National Guard was not invented or authorized until after 1900, there could have been no understanding in 1889 that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to authorize the states to arm the National Guard.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
hmmm the next Civil War, East against West? NorthEast, South, South West, Plains against MidWest, NorthEast, East?
It'll be people with guns who want to mind their own business against people without guns who want to tell everyone else how to live.
-
Originally posted by eagl
It'll be people with guns who want to mind their own business against people without guns who want to tell everyone else how to live.
correction: "against people with BIGGER guns, and tanks, and jets, and field artillery, etc..." Good luck defending yourselves with your pea-shooters though.
-
Kewl another Ruby Ridge or Waco in the making... just on a larger scale.
This'll be better than watching all that Election 2008 crap on TV.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
correction: "against people with BIGGER guns, and tanks, and jets, and field artillery, etc..." Good luck defending yourselves with your pea-shooters though.
Don't be retarded. There is no way in hell the liberal party could garner the favor of the military.
If you analyze most of the original colony's state constitutions, they clearly define it as an individual right.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
correction: "against people with BIGGER guns, and tanks, and jets, and field artillery, etc..." Good luck defending yourselves with your pea-shooters though.
I think you are overlooking one very important fact.........again.
The very people who man those tanks, guns and field artillery are not bound to the government.
In such a case there are not but two choices.........stand up.......or bend over.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I think you are overlooking one very important fact.........again.
The very people who man those tanks, guns and field artillery are not bound to the government.
In such a case there are not but two choices.........stand up.......or bend over.
And I'm fairly sure there are a few people FROM Montana that are in the military that might react unfavorably to their state being attacked.
I'm also fairly sure they could be a few people from other states with a similar attitude.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I think you are overlooking one very important fact.........again.
The very people who man those tanks, guns and field artillery are not bound to the government.
good point.
-
It would appear that the liberals like bingalong are having a hard sell with their liberal "collective rights" BS.. whole states are opting out.
Montana could secede. All they would have to do is nationalize the missle silos.
Say.. "leave us alone or we will vaporize about a dozen worthless blue cities"
lazs
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
correction: "against people with BIGGER guns, and tanks, and jets, and field artillery, etc..." Good luck defending yourselves with your pea-shooters though.
I don't know how many of my co-workers would participate in something like that, but I don't think I would... So you can subtract the tanks, jets, field altillery, etc from the equation. One drawback of a military like ours is that it's probably going to be worthless if someone tries to use it against, well, ourselves.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It would appear that the liberals like bingalong are having a hard sell with their liberal "collective rights" BS.. whole states are opting out.
Montana could secede. All they would have to do is nationalize the missle silos.
Say.. "leave us alone or we will vaporize about a dozen worthless blue cities"
lazs
Wouldn't work without a lot of collaboration. The safeguards don't lend themselves to being taken over by small groups.
-
Originally posted by eagl
One drawback of a military like ours is that it's probably going to be
worthless if someone tries to use it against, well, ourselves.
I don't see that as a drawback, I prefer to think of that as a plus. Military people with the moral judgment and courage to know what is right and wrong, then follow their convictions is exactly what I want in uniform.
-
Originally posted by Regulator
I don't see that as a drawback, I prefer to think of that as a plus. Military people with the moral judgment and courage to know what is right and wrong, then follow their convictions is exactly what I want in uniform.
That's exactly what I meant :) It's a drawback to people trying to rewrite or circumvent the constitution.
-
I'll go on record as saying there is no way in hell the SCOTUS will rule the 2nd as a "collective" right. They will either observe the obvious that it is an individual right or they'll avoid the issue altogether.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It would appear that the liberals like bingalong are having a hard sell with their liberal "collective rights" BS.. whole states are opting out.
Montana could secede. All they would have to do is nationalize the missle silos.
Say.. "leave us alone or we will vaporize about a dozen worthless blue cities"
lazs
Your still confused :) I imagine you will stay in a state off stupor the rest of you natural life :)
-
Originally posted by eagl
I don't know how many of my co-workers would participate in something like that, but I don't think I would... So you can subtract the tanks, jets, field altillery, etc from the equation. One drawback of a military like ours is that it's probably going to be worthless if someone tries to use it against, well, ourselves.
Still, he seems hopeful.
-
So, how are those Bush appointed Justices looking to ya now?
-
Originally posted by rpm
So, how are those Bush appointed Justices looking to ya now?
You know something I don't? Looking like they'll uphold the constitution as was intended to me.
-
Originally posted by rpm
So, how are those Bush appointed Justices looking to ya now?
What in the hell does this have to do with this topic?
Have they ruled (the entire court)?
What does the fact that Bush appointed some justices have to do with this?
-
GO Montana GO!!!!
-
It looks like they may not be the defenders of the "right to bear arms" you were hoping for.
Therefore, any holding that the Second Amendment merely gives the power to the state to arm its National Guard would violate Montana's contract, because it would be in conflict with the intent of the parties of the contract at the time the parties entered into that contract.
Lazs, your take on this?
-
Here is a little more on the Montana thing
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914
-
Thanks for the link Wrag. I misread the first link and thought the collective arguement was the ruling.
-
Originally posted by rpm
It looks like they may not be the defenders of the "right to bear arms" you were hoping for.
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?
-
The point.. that bingie and RPM seem to have missed is that Montana entered into the union in 1889 this was a century before some aclu liberal and a few professors at some liberal college came up with the term "collective right" or.. no right at all.. it was also decades before any kind of national guard act existed. that part is for bingie.
In essence.. Montana, and every other state.. joined the union willingly and with a contract. part of that contract in almost every case was that the constitutions of said states that were in place at the time would be honored.
Most of the states right to bear arms were written so that even bingie could not twist the meaning.. not even an aclu lawyer could. It was clearly an individual right in every case.
The US accepted these terms and was a signatory to the "contract" (or compact)
This means that no matter what.. the SC can not take away a states right to give the right to keep and bear arms to it's citizens.. that the understanding was that the state of Montana's constitution was not in contradiction to the constitution of the US. Calling it a "collective right" or, no right at all.. would mean the Montana's state constitution was could be overridden by the feds..
This is impossible since the feds agreed in the first place and were fine with the wording of the Montana constitution when they signed em up.
You really can't have feds making gun laws based on some bogus "we were just kidding about the "people" part" and those laws running contrary to the states constitutions.
You have to base it on what was in place at the time of the contract. The Montana constitution and most other states is quite clear. If the feds had meant to take away the individual right to keep and bear arms.. they should never have allowed the states to retain their constitutions worded the way they were.. that being.. an absolute individual right.
Mostly.. the states have more clear rights called out because the style of giving reasons for protecting a right went out of fashion.. the states just left the flowery part.. the fluff... out.
For RPM.. the Bush SC judges will do the right thing.. the left wing ones will not. The left wing ones will simply tell us that the constitution is toilet paper and was only ever a suggestion.
lazs
-
For RPM.. the Bush SC judges will do the right thing.. the left wing ones will not. The left wing ones will simply tell us that the constitution is toilet paper and was only ever a suggestion.
Actually, this case is so clear and the support of liberal constitutional scholars like Tribe is so clear that it may not be that close -- at least on the individual rights issue.
Only time will tell.
BTW, the last thing I want are so caller "conservative" jurists legislating from the bench like the liberal jurists have for some many years. Just compare the issue to the Constitution for a pass fail. Amend the Constitution to change the basis of law. Lets hope we have the right kind of jurists appointed who will now do a fair, concise job.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The point.. that bingie and RPM seem to have missed is that Montana entered into the union in 1889 this was a century before some aclu liberal and a few professors at some liberal college came up with the term "collective right" or.. no right at all.. it was also decades before any kind of national guard act existed. that part is for bingie.
In essence.. Montana, and every other state.. joined the union willingly and with a contract. part of that contract in almost every case was that the constitutions of said states that were in place at the time would be honored.
Most of the states right to bear arms were written so that even bingie could not twist the meaning.. not even an aclu lawyer could. It was clearly an individual right in every case.
The US accepted these terms and was a signatory to the "contract" (or compact)
This means that no matter what.. the SC can not take away a states right to give the right to keep and bear arms to it's citizens.. that the understanding was that the state of Montana's constitution was not in contradiction to the constitution of the US. Calling it a "collective right" or, no right at all.. would mean the Montana's state constitution was could be overridden by the feds..
This is impossible since the feds agreed in the first place and were fine with the wording of the Montana constitution when they signed em up.
You really can't have feds making gun laws based on some bogus "we were just kidding about the "people" part" and those laws running contrary to the states constitutions.
You have to base it on what was in place at the time of the contract. The Montana constitution and most other states is quite clear. If the feds had meant to take away the individual right to keep and bear arms.. they should never have allowed the states to retain their constitutions worded the way they were.. that being.. an absolute individual right.
Mostly.. the states have more clear rights called out because the style of giving reasons for protecting a right went out of fashion.. the states just left the flowery part.. the fluff... out.
For RPM.. the Bush SC judges will do the right thing.. the left wing ones will not. The left wing ones will simply tell us that the constitution is toilet paper and was only ever a suggestion.
lazs
1889 to 1903militia act = decades? confused again? Most states had it worded likewize.
what about the states all ready in with similar laws? Montana isnt special.
Let them succeed good luck too them. It is a nice place been there a few times.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
1889 to 1903militia act = decades? confused again?
The National Defense Act of 1916 , 1889 to 1916, so yes decades as in more than one... 27 years, two decadeS
it was also decades before any kind of national guard act
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
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