POLITICS - Montana throws in on 2A

[homefront]

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=P ... geId=56914

[Grizz]

That's some of the smartest and best news I've seen in a long time. It's the "these two things cannot possibly both be true" issue.

In order for the supremes to deny our 2nd they have to vacate contract law... and I don't doubt about half of them are willing to do it, along with hill, huss, bush, gore, losi, bxr, etc etc etc.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGG

I think that no restrictions should be tolerated against the 2nd unless equal restrictions are enacted against every other 'guaranty' of the founding documents. It's all or NONE.

What part of NO don't those pus-pots get?

[cubrock]

I think that no restrictions should be tolerated against the 2nd unless equal restrictions are enacted against every other 'guaranty' of the founding documents. It's all or NONE.

I think no restrictions should be tolerated against the 2nd unless equal restrictions are placed on police agencies and the military. When the 2nd was drafted, there was private ownership of things other than muzzle-loading rifles. Private citizens brought cannon, ships, supply wagons, all sort of munitions to the War of Independence. We couldn't have won the war with government-supplied munitions.

[Old Savage]

Let everyone you know know that the US Congress and President Benjamin Harrison already agreed to and affirmed that any person has the right to keep and bear arms in the Montana contract for statehood and this is contained in Article I of the Montana Constitution.


In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.

"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.

[Poohgyrr]

Here is a pic of Sutter's Fort in Sacramento, CA. The 1849 CA gold rush began when people found gold on Sutter's property. An important piece of local, state, and national history.

In the background, is one of John Sutter's personal firearms. A cannon, and he had several. That was common, if you had the money to get one legally, or the ability to just get one, like at the Alamo (IIRC) for example. Those personally and company owned wooden sailing ships used to transport trading goods across the oceans had them too.

[cubrock]

Here is a pic of Sutter's Fort in Sacramento, CA. The 1849 CA gold rush began when people found gold on Sutter's property. An important piece of local, state, and national history.

In the background, is one of John Sutter's personal firearms. A cannon, and he had several. That was common, if you had the money to get one legally, or the ability to just get one, like at the Alamo (IIRC) for example. Those personally and company owned wooden sailing ships used to transport trading goods across the oceans had them too.

As far as I know, there were no federal laws prohibiting owning cannon at that time. It wasn't really until the NFA that things like that were banned wholesale unless you paid the $200 tax, which amounted to more than a month's wages for the average working man.

[LeverBob]

Good gravy Marie...I've been waiting for this for 20 yrs. Bout time our states got up on their feet & start calling the feds on their breech of contract. Any constitution is nothing more than a contract, just like any other & subject to the same UCC laws that govern All contracts domestically & internationally.

Check out Lysander Spooner on the web...you may be shocked though, so tighten your seatbelt when you do. It'll make you even madder than you were before! Heh!

I think Montana just stuck their finger in the feds eye...Hehehehe!

LeverBob