Montana threatening Secession !

reply to post by TrueAmerican

[align=center][color=#80c0e0]EXCELLENT POST[/align]
This really adds some context to the thread topic. I agree that it doesn't look good for the rebellion after reading what you've presented. D.C. will likely be protected by the Supreme Court, which does nothing for Montana.

If, by some chance, the decision is made to allow guns in Washington, we can expect Montana to RUN to the courts to file their next appeal. We could also expect some fall-out from Homeland Security, Bush, and the media about how our Nation's capitol is SO unsecured.

Again, great post. You made me pull out the BIG THUMBS UP for that one! I look forward to adding the in-formal legal opinions of Alaska Bar staff.

[edit on 2/21/2008 by damajikninja]

reply to post by Nohup


While crop land may not be great, livestock is a huge industry. There is a lot of crop land as well. I doubt they move on due to industry. That is synical and un-founded. For the most part people of Montana love thier land. Two it would be trading the fire for the frying pan. I just don't see Montana making it. I don't see troops moving into Montana either.

Originally posted by damajikninja
We could also expect some fall-out from Homeland Security, Bush, and the media about how our Nation's capitol is SO unsecured.

lol, you bout knocked my eye out with that thing!

But seriously, thanks. The thing that kinda sent me scrambling for more info on the case was a noticeable lack of links to it directly. When I reviewed the Montana legislation, and then went to check the actual case, the things I presented above became evident. To me at least. And I could be wrong. We'll see what some others have to say.

As to the above quote, yup. With ya there.

Why do we keep using antiquated, erroneous case law to defend the rights contained within the constitution?

The 2nd Amendment's pretty straightword "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Let me simplify it like this:

28th Amendment "People shall have the right to walk in the woods"

1) D.C. passes a law you can't walk in the woods
2) A district court says you can walk if you wear hiking boots
3) The appellate court says you can wear hiking boots or running shoes
4) The supreme court says you can walk in the woods as long as you have footwear.


So now for a hundred years people are going to debate the meaning of footwear. Is it hiking boots, or running shoes, or KEDS.

"People shall have the right to walk in the woods"

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

reply to post by ColdWater


Infringed

infringe

Main Entry:
in·fringe Listen to the pronunciation of infringe
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈfrinj\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology:
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date:
1513

transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another 2obsolete : defeat, frustrateintransitive verb: encroach —used with on or upon
synonyms see trespass

defeat

Interesting word. Especially when you consider what we are talking about here.

Why is it one could not argue that because of the way that is worded, and especially in the context of the rest of the historic document, that the right to bear arms is absolute, and with no restrictions whatsoever? If they had meant to put more restrictions on it, they would have. The whole idea is that you, Mr. Federal or State Government, shall never have the advantage of force over the people, en masse. A civilian police force is one thing, but now we are in a situation where the government has not only regulated away the publics' ability to own anything other than a pee shooter, but is faced with an all powerful central command in possession of the greatest weapons in the history of mankind. And a willingness to use them on their sole authority, preemptively. So what ever happened to that ole piece of paper, eh?

If anything, the federal government should be protected by a contingent of militia sent and directed by the States. That authority to combine forces should only even be considered in the event of an invading force or national disaster.

You'd figure what they meant was for State militias to hold the real military power. Think about it. Right now we should really be sitting in a situation where State run militias hold, share and regulate all military technology.

The federal government should be really existing to help coordinate that role, and draw from it only in a time of extremely urgent need in the name of national defense of a real attack, by a foreign military, on the homeland. Foreign policy? The States decide. The federal government delivers the message.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by TrueAmerican]

I have to make this short this is nothing but fodder. No one will secede. Something will happen, probably another war but there will be no secession you can count on that.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by Beefcake]

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Even if it were true I just have one question... do they intend to take their portion of the National debt with them?

Well, their portion of their debt would be proportional to their population, not the number of states in the union,
so, instead of $185,880,285,637 for the state,
it would be closer to $29,450,000,000
a difference of about 156 billion dollars.

Every person in the U.S. owns about 30,500 worth of the debt, there are less than 950 million in Montana, national debt is about 9.3 trillion at the moment.

I would say, with the land and resources, they could do quite well and have their share of the debt paid off. Of course, they get to keep all the military equipment, since, they should own it. It is their tax money that have paid for it as well. Basically a sovereign state that is no longer united in the union.




Not that this is going to happen anytime soon, but again, each state has the right, and duty to if the appointed government becomes tyrannical and the system to appeal and repair doesn't work any longer.


It may not be the best for the 'U.S.' as in it may end, but we should not worry about the nation itself, but the people and how they are treated. Be a patriot and a human, not a nationalist apologist.

I hope to not see the nation dissolve, but I also don't want to see us continuing down the path that history has shown to be quite distasteful in the long run.

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
Montana has 535 nukes. That is not a small ammount and the makings for an independant county.
[edit on 20-2-2008 by Vasilis Azoth]

Those are not Montana's nukes; they belong to the United States federal government. They just happen to be based in Montana. If Montana were to succede (and it's not, ludicrous cheering and dreaming aside), they would be required to hand them over to the US government.

Besides, can we get another source for this? This sources cited are less-than-credible. Can we get something directly from the Montana legislature, or even a media outlet in Montana?

reply to post by Conspiriology


Wow.
I think I love you.

Best post, ever.

Is this where the 2nd American Civil War starts?

How annoying that would be for the USA if montana did pull out....All those flags would have to lose a star!

Geez. Now I don't know if I want to move to a free New Hampshire, free Montana or free Alaska.

I guess a free Alaska would offer more opportunity and since it's off the main body of the U.S. the fed might leave it alone. Or because it's off the main U.S. the fed might invade with full force. I doubt the fed would invade something right in the main body like New Hampshire or Montana. I don't expect the rest of the states would witness something like that and just be okay with it. The media would have to spin it pretty hard that people in Montana are just monsters or "unpatriotic" or want to secede so they can rape kids or something like that.

At any rate they aren't alone. Wikipedia has 34 states with secession proposals. Granted this includes individual towns not just full state proposals but it looks like quite a few people want out.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the way, the USA can be taken back. By states standing up as superior to the federal government. It is primarily the treason of the cities and states that has resulted in the degradation of the republic. States need to stand up against the false federalism that has unconstitutionally manipulated them.

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
i would think if any states wanted to secede and be successful independently it would be cali and alaska. i have read both would instantly become 2 of the richest countries in the top 10 in the world.
but the us would never allow that because they are a huge part of the backbone of our economy.

Yes.. California on its own has the world 3rd largest economy. Not bad for a state..

However, every state will be able to care for themselves, so long as there is free trade..

Some states are already dirt poor.. Michigan.. Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansaw and so forth.. splitting might make them poorer, but hell.. every year they get poorer anyways.

I wouldn't read too much into it. They're not got to secede. This is just Montana's warning to the government that they will not abide by the ruling if the Supreme Court rules against individual gun owners. In other words, Montana is saying that it will be a 'sanctuary state' for gun owners, much like there are 'sanctuary cities' for illegal aliens.

And if it really gets nasty and they do secede, don't think for a second that they'd be alone. They'd probably have most, if not all of the southern states with them, as well as most of the plains states.

Originally posted by Nohup
Montana has been threatening to start their own country for years. But what are they going to do for industry? Two thirds of the state is barren scrub land barely suitable for toxic waste disposal. The rest is mountains. Pretty, but very little is available for growing crops. There's some mining, I guess. But overall, how would they make money?

The only advantage I can see to secession is they can then declare themselves a Third World Country and get a lot of foreign aid from the U.S.

They could become a tax haven for Corp America. Low or No Income tax and bring in Industry, Manufacturing and Assembly.

reply to post by bigfoot1212

california is as close to a police state as you can get already. could imagine if we suceeded what kind place this would become.
not only does our federal gov need an enima our state gov does too.
then our power hungry DA's and our nazi style law enforcment should be next. but as long as these idiot yuppie soccer mom starbuck's drinking perscription drug enduced morons can finance their late model gas guzzling S.U.V.'s and their million dollar cracker box homes they won't dare move a mussle to secure their constitutional right's...
so i beg you PLEASE don't wish for california to suceed ,it's bad enough here now..

reply to post by ironman433


Californians got a bum deal with that state. It's too large and it's population is way to diverse. The rural areas will never feel the same as the urban areas do about the laws that govern the state.

Sure some yuppie in the city or a close suburb might think that banning barrel shrouds will keep her safe from all the angry brown people just waiting to rape her and her children but not too far away from that paranoia is a sensible rancher or farmer of just blue collar guy who likes shooting sports and just wants to be left alone. They'll never get along.

California needs to split apart.

The true patriot is not the man who blindly defends a corrupt government. It is the man who defends the Constitution from such a government.

[edit on 2-21-2008 by groingrinder]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

i must agree with you on that. you are 100% correct in you assertion and i thank you for that..