The DC V. Heller case is certainly a case which may set some precedent upon which Montana may try to base judgment to seceed. But it might not.
In understanding the events that led up to the DC V. Heller case, a very concise view and important opinion on the matter resides at
Northwestern University
The key pieces of which are this:
In urging the Court to review the case, lawyers for the District contended that the D.C. Circuit opinion was "the first time in the Nation's
history that a federal appellate court has invoked the Second Amendment to strike down any gun-control law." Pet. at 1-2. They argued that the
decision created a critical split with the nine other circuits that had held that the Amendment did not protect private gun ownership.
Moreover, the petitioners argued, the decision was wrong for three reasons: first, the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of those serving in
state militias; second, the Amendment does not apply against the District as it is a federal enclave rather than a state; and third, the statute does
not violate the Second Amendment because it amounts to a regulation on, rather than a prohibition of, gun ownership.
Notably, the respondents joined the petitioners in asking the Supreme Court to take the case. They contended that many courts misconstrue the meaning
of the Second Amendment, creating a need for Supreme Court clarification.
Although the parties agreed that the Supreme Court should accept the Heller case, they have common ground on precious little else. In fact, although
the litigation is well developed, the parties do not even agree on the nature of the prohibitions they are contesting. The District defines the
disputed ordinances as banning private possession of handguns, which are uniquely dangerous, while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns. The gun
owners contend that the District's code outlaws possession of all "functional firearms" because it requires that rifles and shotguns be
disassembled and trigger locked.
In taking the case, the Court declined both glosses and drafted its own Question Presented: "Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code Secs.
7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), ad 7-2507.02 -- violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated
militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"
At the heart of the Supreme Court review lies its 1939 opinion in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which it was asked to decide
whether the holder of a sawed-off shotgun who transmitted it across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act was insulated by the Second
Amendment. The Court held that he was not, relying primarily on the fact that the weapon at issue was not an "arm" as intended by the Second
Amendment because it could not be used in a militia. That holding has been interpreted by gun control advocates as a vindication of their position
that the Amendment applies only to militia members, while gun owners contend that it means any individual may carry a gun so long as it could be used
in combat.
So one issue is whether that precedent can really be applied to anything other than the DC District, because it is a federal entity separate from the
States, and the laws for that district have historically been interpreted differently. Which in my mind is ridiculous. The States erect and pay for
federal government. Out of all places in the country, the one that needs to stick to the constitution like glue is DC. But conveniently instead, they
want to have their own separate little kingdom... handguns? No way.
BS. I say handguns and just about anything else. Yes way. Why does your little piece of the pie get to put all these restrictions on arms, when you
are the very ones that the Constitution seeks to trust, but accordingly specifically limit, in your ability to hold the power of military force over
its people?
I will even further argue that the intent of the Second Amendment was to provide a means to the people of at least equal armament to federal
government, if not above, and done so by State Militia. Such that the federal government never held the power of force over its people. Take a look
instead at how State militias have been swallowed up by annex into the National Guard, now under compulsive service to the various national Armed
Forces. More BS.
But I digress.
Montana trying to base it's findings to warrant secession on this particular case may be "premature", according to the other case, which the SC is
likely to uphold for DC. The reason is that when you look at the actual
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(this means that the question has been accepted for review and judgment by the Supreme Court), it says this:
07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
DECISION BELOW:478 F. 3d 370
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-7041
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and
shotguns.
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C.
CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY
STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES?
CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and
shotguns.
In other words the SC is going to rule specifically on this aspect of it, relative to DC only:
The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, involves three District of Columbia firearms ordinances. The first, D.C.Code Sec.
7-2502.02(a)(4), generally bars the registration of handguns. The second, D.C. Code Sec. 22-4504(a), prohibits carrying a pistol without a license.
The third, D.C. Code Sec. 7-2507.02, requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked.
While I disagree with it, and agree that Montana has every right for all the reasons in the OP links, as well as my own dreams stated above, imo the
SC will likely uphold the bans in DC and tell Montana to take a hike, that it doesn't concern them.
It is interesting though the dynamics of political pressure from afar that Montana brings to bear on this ruling with threat of secession on a
"collective ruling" decision. I seriously doubt it will much affect the SC's decision on DC. Be wonderful if I was wrong. But in either case, you
gun owners aspiring to be in DC better get on the phone and thank some people in Montana for putting as much pressure as they can on behalf of your
buts.
