Montana to SCOTUS: Don't you dare!

[AKIron]

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.

[Bingolong]

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

[Shifty]

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.

[rpm]

So, how are those Bush appointed Justices looking to ya now?

[AKIron]

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.

[Donzo]

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?

[Gunter Van Ulm]

GO Montana GO!!!!

[rpm]

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?

[wrag]

Here is a little more on the Montana thing

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914

[rpm]

Thanks for the link Wrag. I misread the first link and thought the collective arguement was the ruling.

[Donzo]

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?

[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

[Charon]

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

[Bingolong]

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.

[Airscrew]

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