Montana threatening Secession !

Originally posted by Rockpuck
"cut and run" ... seriously.. the Bush vocab rhetoric is the only thing that is tiresome.

Well, what do you call it when things get tough, and everyone thinks the only thing to do is leave? I guess staying and fighting for what you believe in and trying to make things right is too hard for some people to do. Just packing up and leaving is so much easier.

reply to post by Dr Love

Isn't this where the State Defense Force (Stage Guard) comes into play? It doesn't look like there's a Montana State Defense presently. Vermont has one though!

[edit on 20-2-2008 by apc]

reply to post by Vasilis Azoth


If they ever did leave the US, I don't think that they will be leaving with the nukes. Just a hunch.

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
According to this article: www.fas.org...

Montana has 535 nukes. That is not a small ammount and the makings for an independant county.

Of course, could they maintain or even use them without Military assistance? I don't know, but I'm sure there are a few clever people out there.

Truthfully, I doubt it would ever come to that and as Dr. Love pointed out I don't think we want it to get that bad.

Vas


[edit on 20-2-2008 by Vasilis Azoth]

Yes, there are ICBMs in Montana, but there is no chance in hell that anyone not in the US Air Force could ever get close to, or even attempt to launch one.

American government now owes more to Otto von Bismark than to Thomas Jefferson but the political elite along with intelligentsia, CIA, NSA, FBI etc., quite cozy with the current arrangement. The result is a powerful and growing police state, just like Bismark envisioned. Thomas Jefferson would be projectile vomiting from this sick and vulgar conversion of these American Owned States and its subjects

Americans are confused about what our rights are supposed to be.
They think they have a right to a job, a right to a minimum income, a right to housing after a hurricane hits and they have no home owners insurance, a right to medical care, a right not to get their "witto feewings hurt", a right to live a good lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, that only serves to enslave or steal from others forcing our extra labor to pay for necessities (violating the 13th Amendment as "involuntary servitude") the pursuit of happiness has become a Government Entitlement and maybe we could all have that happiness if we didn't have to pay for the Happiness of Corporate fat cats getting richer and richer off the backs of average American Taxpayers.

While the Bush Administration may still have some die hard supporters, they would be the type that by now one can only consider them the victims of STD's (Serious Terminal Denial).

While I hear the "illogical inductive arguments" to support him such as "We haven't been attacked since 911" suggesting Bush is to be given the credit for that, they are indignant with anyone suggesting he is to blame for many other issues saying "They Blame Bush for that!"

Well one can argue that what ties Bush has with the Arab world including Bin-laden, that it is more likely we wouldn't have been attacked at all if we had a President that paid attention to the numerous urgent warnings given weeks before 911. It is the arrogance of this President that frankly just pisses people off.

Liberal or Conservative the distinctions between the two party's are so ambiguously murky, voting party really is no consolation booby prize anymore when your candidate is out of the race.

What we seem to be left with is not the creme de la creme that rises to the top but rather another wealthy lawyer or career senator with his or her head up their ass.

Please forgive the aforementioned expletive,, I realize using language like the word "lawyer" may have offended some of you.

Americans have been severely underestimated when a rogue Government like the Bush Administration assumes that we would barter our freedom for security or that they can continue to reiterate the mantra regarding the lessons of 911 and think we are still buying it.

The real lesson here is when it gets down to it, Americans are still Americans and it is the damn Government that has lost the American Spirit, NOT its people. You can't continue to scare us with the terrorists the terrorists lions and tigers and bears OH MY!

You can try manipulating us with the Muslims who want to cut our heads off and it pisses us off and yeah we want to get the bastards that did it and they know that's just what the pat Tillman's and any 19-20 year old boy into manhood says while the rest are scared and agree to send them off. It is very persuasive that we get news like that at critical times of their agenda while taking more of our civil rights away. Recently specific flaws in the addendum made to Gun laws have broken the camels back for many in some states and they want OUT!

Rights taken from us regarded by everyone involved in the writing of the Constitution as an imperative for the American experiment, affirming that the federal government had only limited and enumerated powers. It was the key principle of to keep the Country a Government OF the people BY the people FOR the people preventing the United States government usurping absolute power with the wisdom and understanding it corrupts absolutely EVERY TIME.

We see how it has gone from a Government OF the people FOR the people to a Government FROM the people doing TO the people.

The logic is as simple as a sales man closing a deal with a contract asking which pen you want to use mine or yours and which ever pen you pick you're a done deal.

It starts by filling out the contract as you both are in a dialogue the salesman isn't even listening to and he knows unless you stop him more of the contract gets filled out.

They have been doing this little by little, taking more and more and more and more moving in a direction where unless we stop them, we are going to end up where we are headed.

It's so gradual and methodical that when we get there we find out being awakened by the bang of door being smashed in opening our eyes to the end of a gun barrel. If You say that's a little extreme then I say you epitomize the axiom of those not learning the lessons of history and are deserving to relive it.


It is universally understood and unanimously agreed that the alternative would be disastrous if the partisans of tyranny of a Government State where absolute power has always become a police state of socialism and communism. The signs are all there from the popularity of Neo Atheism to the apathy of a useless and benign News Media's use of social engineering whether secular or religious the rich buy their way into power and pay off their friends while we fight their enemy.

The rest are idly dumbed down, taxed out of a middle class existence, spyed on, threatened by invisible hostiles dubbed "terrorists" and sending our kids to spill blood in a war that has them increasing enlistment extensions while military suicide rates are growing exponentially.

Our Country has been attempting to get us excited about the up-coming elections and while Ron Paul may have appeared like a constitutionalists, he didn't have the presence for a Media that couldn't get Abraham Lincoln Elected today for the same reason.

It would be nice if we could genetically splice together a quasi Bill Clinton Ron Paul example and leave the bad meme out of the equation but it would be easier to fix the the system. I happen to think We have great leaders in this country un-discovered talent that can't get a foot in the door with a system of politics where anyone of them can be legally bribed as long as it is under the guise of the word "Lobby".

It needs to be FIXED and every attempt to do so was met with a Supreme Courts snubbing their nose i the air or a president ignoring us with executive privilege abuses

If anyone has not figured it out yet, We have tried voting the Rubber stamp Republican bums out and Replaced them with Rubber boned Democrats discovering the only difference between the two Bum Party's is the spelling.

what Montana is doing is a symptom or side effect of being connected to a body of states where a cancerous federal government tumor has grown bigger then the body hosting it.

What States like Vermont and Montana want to do is,,

CUT IT OFF

- Con














[edit on 21-2-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Black_Fox


And you know the irony?
Montana voters swung for the team that brought them all that. Every single election. They vote to rip away their own rights -and ours as well. But then when they feel they might not be able to keep their guns, and suddenly they give a damn about their rights?

I guess rights are only valuable if you have to pay money to exercise them.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Black_Fox

 

And you know the irony?
Montana voters swung for the team that brought them all that. Every single election. They vote to rip away their own rights -and ours as well. But then when they feel they might not be able to keep their guns, and suddenly they give a damn about their rights?

I guess rights are only valuable if you have to pay money to exercise them.

I know here in Arizona,, we would do it in a heartbeat if they messed with our guns. IN a NANO second, I mean gun ownership is a religion here .

- Con

I lived in Montana for a time...two years to be exact.

In that time I saw as much of Montana as I could. I wasn't impressed. I was constantly being heard saying, "you call THAT a mountain?"

I'm born/bred/raised Alaskan.

I consider myself first and foremost an "Alaskan" and THEN a US Citizen. Many of my fellow friends also share that sentiment.

If any state had the resources to support it's own government (income, wealth) as well as independent-minded-constitutionalist people....it would be ALASKA.

With 650,000 people, in a land as large as Europe itself (most large cities in the 'states have 5 times our entire state population) -- Alaska not only has the industry in place (trans-alaskan pipeline) and the future HUGE and i mean HUGE natural gas reserves here to make it.

I'm proud that the produce I eat was grown here, the milk I was raised on was locally produced. I'm proud that the fish and meat I eat were fairly hunted by real people.

I got angry in Montana when a woman I was dating down there wore my "Alaskan Grown" logo hoodie...:




She didn't understand why I felt so upset that she was parading herself around as an "Alaskan" when she wasn't. She just didn't get "it". Most here won't get it either.

Alaska has the resources, the in-place oil company infrastructure, and the independent/proud mindset to actually make a cession actually WORK.

There are very few if ANY other states that can/could claim the same.

Hell, I get 1200 bux a year just living here in oil revenue the state doles out to it's people.

I love where i'm from, and at times I curse the cold...but the food, air, water here raised me to become who I am. I'll never be anything else first and foremost than an "Alaskan".

.2


[edit on 20-2-2008 by MystikMushroom]

not sure why exactly they want to secede(if even true) but wasn't our civil war fought overTHE STATES RIGHTS and not wanting the federal gov't to have the right to control them?

reply to post by bigfoot1212


Why yes, yes it was. Of course, the civil war was fought over one "State's right" in particular, that being the state's authority to declare one human being the legal property of another human being, with no protections or caveats.

Anyone who tells you it was over slavery is a fool, and anyone who tells you it wasn't over slavery is a liar

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I don't think that Secession is the point of what they are trying to do. I believe it has more to do with preserving the agreed to rights in regard to their State regardless of the Supreme Courts ruling. If the Court rules that gun possession is not an Individual Right, they are contending it would not apply to Montana. Actual secession would be a fools move and I don't think they are being that naive. In fact, I think this is quite shrewd on their part.

gotta agree with this assesment so far

Originally posted by Rockpuck

And don't think all America would support the slaughter of the folks from Montana. The insurrections that would arise would be enough to bring the country to its knees.

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that All America would be behind the Federal government if they were to wipe out the residents of Montana? If so don't speak for me. Not only would I not support our governments actions but would go to Montana to help the residents there fight if it came to that.

They (Montana) has every right to leave the union if they wish. If the government was to attack them for it I highly doubt that Americans would support the feds action.

Nevermind Rockpuck...After reading it again I got what you were saying. Brainfarts, gotta love em

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Simon_Boudreaux]

To me it begins and ends here:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -Declaration of Independence

There is a legitimate argument that supports our being "reduced under absolute Despotism" or at least on our way, and one doesn't have to look very hard to establish a list of "abuses and usurpations". Perhaps Montana is one of the few states with the stones to let the federal government know that among other constitutional and fundementally accepted forms of recourse, they do have the right, in fact the duty, to throw off such a government.

Of course this course of action, and even the threat of it must be exercised with great discernment. I'm not sure if using the threat of secession to influence legal proceedings is a great precedent to set. I would be more impressed if they had waited, and had the ruling supported the law in DC, then petition the court to review the ruling under on the basis of its violation of the contract between the state of montana and the federal government.

But I digress, the point is they are exercising their rights in defense of their rights. I'm all for it.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by psylence1]

reply to post by Nailer


Is this due to the water dispute with Wyoming?

Apparently one state is suing the other, although I'm not sure which.

If Montana secedes, how long before federal troops are sent in to make an example out of them?

On one hand its great news, on the other not so good (for Montanans anyway).

I don't want to see any more blood shed...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


no i totally agree with you that slavery was the main issue. i will not deny that. but there were other reasons also why the states seceded. i'm not just sure what this current reason is. i've been searching and can't find anything about it.
and in reply to mushroom- i live in pa but my aunt and uncle live in alaska and i lived there for a while too and i came home and know exactly what you mean when you find yourself saying "that's not amountain" lmao i still do itand it has been years


[edit on 20-2-2008 by bigfoot1212]

[edit on 20-2-2008 by bigfoot1212]

Well I do know one way that montana could legally make money to support their new country and actually get themselves a decent start. Corporations. Tear down restrictions, allow for research into questionable technology to be pursued. Corporations would pay alot of money to have a piece of land surrounded by north american countries with limitless testing and research labs.

Montana could make a killing if it were willing to put aside morality and lease land to big technology corporations.

I sent this around to everybody at the Alaska Bar Association today. It's where I work, and we often make pithy comments and debate over current legal issues (via long, in-house email chains ). Included in my mass-email were all the legal documents from the OPs linked site. It will be interesting to find out what some of these attorneys think about all this.

[edit on 2/20/2008 by damajikninja]

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.

Talk, Talk, Talk

Why don't TX, SC, HI,VT, MT, and and any other states who think they can somehow intimidate the Federal Government with petitions and declarations into respecting their soverignty put their money where their mouth is and unite against the Emperor and his royal Cabinet.

You've got governors, mayors, and state legislatators trying to express the will of the people, but when their spineless Senators and Congressman get to Washington they bow before the Emperor and lick his boots.

This is not a Union, it is not a Federation. We are ruled by an Empire.

Let the citizens of any state pass a law that benefits it's people and has no bearing on the nation. If the Emperor dissapproves he'll send his ATF henchman, they'll burn your wives and children, and run their ATF flag up the pole and show you who owns your state. While your guardsmen are sent to foreign lands to expand the Empire and the best and strongest of your young defenders are deliberately brainwashed into believing the threat to their homes comes from foreign soil the biggest enemy to freedom and the right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness is right here in the North American Empire.

I'm not talking about a civil war, I'm talking about a united front of states that will take back their rights and restore this Union before the Emperor destroys us all.

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.