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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
