Montanans insist on gun rights
Posted on February 26th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, 2nd Amendment, Brad Johnson, Constitution, contract, District of Columbia, federal government, freedom, guns, liberty, Montana, politics, prohibition, secession, Supreme Court, The Times, The Washington Times, United States, US Supreme Court, USA, your rightsMontana officials said its statehood contract will be breached if the U.S. Supreme Court rules only state-run militias can keep and bear arms.
While there’s no secession talk in Montana, 39 elected state officials signed a resolution declaring that if the court rules the Second Amendment to the Constitution is a right of states, not individuals, Montana’s compact would be violated, The Washington Times reported Monday.
“The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract,” Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to the Times.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on a federal court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s gun-ownership ban. The high court hasn’t issued a broad Second Amendment ruling in nearly seven decades, including whether it provides an individual right or a state government-held collective right, the Times said.
The Montana statehood contract, preserved as Article I of the state’s constitution, specifies gun ownership as an individual right, reading in part, “The right of any person to keep or bear arms … shall not be called into question.”
I thought the REAL ID would put the states and federal government at major odds first. Seems I may be wrong. This is pretty interesting. You rarely have people in these positions talking in this manner. I doubt very much anything will come of this but it’s fun nonetheless.
There is an issue I have with the Bill of Rights and its application. Through incorporation the federal government says that particular amendments apply to state governments. I have major issues with the fact that these cases where incorporation was cited are effectively random. They seem to create the need for incorporation on the spot instead of there being a blanket statement that in fact full incorporation has occurred. This has allowed for the federal government to cherry pick which it wants to enforce. A notable amendment not incorporated is the 2nd. If incorporation is legit it should be codified clearly by passing a new amendment which states without a doubt that all protected enumerated rights found in the federal constitution also apply to the states and the federal government has the power to pass and enforce laws to do so.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
