Would A “Collective” Ruling By Supreme Court Violate Montana’s Contract To Join The Union?
Posted by Tom Remington on February 26, 2008
Montana’s Secretary of State, Brad Johnson, send a letter to the Washington Times, in response to a previous Op-Ed in that paper, stating that if the United State Supreme Court rules in the upcoming District of Columbia vs. Heller case, that the Second Amendment is a state’s collective right to own guns and not an individual’s, the United States will be in violation of the contract signed when Montana became a state. Here’s a copy of the letter:
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District (”Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday).
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory.
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States 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.
BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont.
The letter refers to Article I of the Montana Constitution. Here’s a link to that, as well as the actual wording of the right in question.
Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the appeals case of District of Columbia versus Heller, more commonly known as the D.C. Gun Ban Case. A lower court, last year in a ruling, declared Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and restrictions on all guns unconstitutional. A ruling from SCOTUS could come as early as June.
For more information and articles on District of Columbia vs. Heller, follow this link.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
it’s always so complicated when the lawyers get ahold of it.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“Its” not complicated at all. American men have been hunting, fighting, defending thier homes and property for every generation since we won this country. Are we going to let any lawyer, judge or court take away what rights and principles men have given thier lives for? These are our freedoms. That is what America is. If it’s not worth dying for, your life has no meaning, no value. The book says, if you value your life more than your principles, your life will be taken from you. Life is principle. How you live it reflects those principles.
But in prospective, I doubt that the Supreme Court will do any less than make plain these rights that have been confused by those that would take away those liberties
February 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
If the Supreme Court rules against the second amendment’s obvious protection of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms we will have no choice but to break away from the Union.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Jagermann - I think that if the Supreme Court rules against an individual right, whether or not Montana breaks away from the Union, will be a small issue. I suspect there will be revolt across the country.
What I see happening is a clarification that it is indeed an individual right but that the Court will then declare that the states have a right to impose “reasonable” control and then the battles begin again as to what “reasonable” is.
If that is the case, I see nothing happening in Washington, D.C. that would restore those people’s rights. D.C. will just declare that they believe their gun restrictions are reasonable and then the court challenges begin all over again.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“American men have been hunting, fighting, defending their homes and property for every generation since we won this country. Are we going to let any lawyer, judge or court take away what rights and principles men have given their lives for?”
Just so there is no confusion, hunting has NOTHING to do with the second amendment. Neither does the military. The second amendment is first and foremost to put the government on notice that it rules at the consent of the people, an armed populace that can and will remove said government should it no longer act in the people’s interest.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Basically, Mark, you’re right. That’s why the clause was put there to begin with. If we let the government we create take away our means to resist or overthrow that government, should it become as bad as it was then, with unfair taxes and despotic power, then we deserve what we get!
The sad fact is that hunting was a way of life and is not so much anymore. Therefore a small percentage of people these days appreciate the tools with which we used to provide, protect and defend our families with. They leave themselves at the mercy of those who will use those weapons, and become subjects of those whom they unwittingly put thier trust in.. In effect, the slave mentality all over again.
And, Tom, I agree with you that we will probally not see much change from the upcoming decision, but maybe there will be some clarification of the historic facts why we still have personal rights of firearms, after all…
February 27th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that’s why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn’t have much hope.
As Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren’t inalienable, they’re just “on loan” from the government.
By disarming law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don’t know who is helpless and who is armed.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“As Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren’t inalienable, they’re just “on loan” from the government.”
Regan would know, he signed the first true gun ban in the US see 1986 gun ban.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
How do you come by that, Jerry? In all the years I remember Reagan, he never signed any anti gun laws that I know of. So how do you say such nonsence, or are you just one more of those aberrations out on the internet? Maybe you’re thinking of 1968, when most all of U.S. gun laws were passed, there was no Ronald Reagan then as president..Stir up fire or get it straight, charlie, or was it, oh yeah, Jerry.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
There were restrictions before before ‘86. However jes, you have obviously been around the block and your memory needs some help. Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did anything but protect gun owner’s. It gave more power to the ATF and outright banned machine guns. Old Ron Reagan was a tool and not some kind of Messianic figure as you remember. Is he who you call upon when a bear attacks you?
February 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I agree with Mark completely.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Jerry or Larry or whoever you are - Please use one name and one name only and cease with the obscene faux email addresses or I’ll close the comment section and ban you from access to the comments.
I have tolerated this for quite some time and I am requesting that you stop.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Thanks, Tom, looks like I guessed right..Sometimes people show thier colors and they ain’t red, white and blue. Maybe they got knocked out of the cradle or something.. I’ll take the colors back with you any day you want to ride the river!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Yo, T what’s yo beef? Why is so mean ta me? C-to-tha-izzant we all jizzay git along? Jiznes, is you com’n on ta me? Whizzat is alll this `bout you n I on riva boat, sounds pretty gay ta me.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Montana’s contract only covered right to ownership. Am I correct in saying that the right to carry was excluded? My best guess is that the courts decision will only throw it back to the states to decide which is best. Back in the 70’s I should have followed my buddies out to Montana.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
What name I use doesn’t matter jes. You still have nothing to support your arguments. What does color have to do with anything anyway?
February 27th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Jerry / Larry
“As Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren’t inalienable, they’re just “on loan” from the government.”
Out of the above quote, you focused on the name Ronald Regan. Yes gun bans are a serious problem but the reason I posted this which I hope others picked up on was “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” I never copy a quote from anyone without posting who said it.
If you honestly think about the quote and look at what is happening to the generations and the way they act according to have the government rules, regulations and laws. Not to mention the special interest groups the actually run the political parties.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
J.T.A., Colors in case you don’t understand are RED WHITE & BLUE and not from where your coming from. In here you are for freedom or against freedom, and the only colors that matter are the true colors. We let you have your say but your starting to sound just a bit disturbed. Get involved, go vote, have a say if you disagree with the special interests, and the two party system. God knows I have problems with the way things are at present, and if the current dog and pony show is the best we can offer up then more voices are needed!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Aw, Tom, let him have his say. He’s probably just a punk kid, looking for attention, with no responsible father to teach him..Needs to blow off steam and we’ve all been there, unless we still are there…At least he’s not out there stealing tires…or not?
If he stays around, maybe he will absorb something he can remember!
February 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
jes, you are probably some middle aged tool, who runs at the mouth and hates to listen. Rebut what I say and provide some facts to back it up. I am willing to accept when I am wrong. However, when I tell it like it is, my remarks are a whole lot funnier and there is no obscure reference to riding a river boat. I hope you choke on your psychobabble.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
What’s psychobabble? Is that what higher learning teaches as a put down? And your remarks are funny? to whom may I ask? Only to yourself right?
When you figure out what’s going on in here you can pick up the colors and take that ride down the river with us.
It does not matter what laws Regan did or did not pass, their are thousands of gun laws on the books and none of them stop crime and - that’s a fact!
The issue is about the supreme courts decision and how it’s going to pan out for Colorado (who has an agreement with the U.S. Government,to the right to keep and bear arms, much like the Indians had) and the rest of the country. Some of the best minds on the issue have determined that the only thing good that will come out if this might be to clarify the wording of our right to bear arms. log onto the NRA/ILA web site and see for yourself.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Riverboat captain, I don’t want to go on a trip!! I don’t want to go up shit creek without a paddle. I never said that gun control stops crime. You need read what I post and if the big words are too much use dictionary.com. I believe it is everyone’s right to bear arms. I will stop picking on Reagan, if that would make you feel better.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
George you are so right. We need to take this country back. This misguided whippersnapper needs to learn a lesson in respect for our forefathers, like the great Ronald Reagan. These darn punk kids should be learning about freedom and the colors so they can the river boat boat when its time. Down here we don’t tollerate this kind of disrespect from deliquents. Stars and Bras!!
February 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Old Ron Reagan was a tool and not some kind of Messianic figure as you remember. Is he who you call upon when a bear attacks you?J
Jes, you are probably some middle aged tool, who runs at the mouth and hates to listen
Jerry or Larry or whoever you are - Please use one name and one name only and cease with the obscene faux email addresses or I’ll close the comment section and ban you from access to the comments.
I have tolerated this for quite some time and I am requesting that you stop.
Jerry Says:
Yo, T what’s yo beef? Why is so mean ta me? C-to-tha-izzant we all jizzay git along? Jiznes, is you com’n on ta me? Whizzat is alll this `bout you n I on riva boat, sounds pretty gay ta me.
Seems like you are up the creek without a paddle. psychobabble????
February 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Psychobabble is an inaccurate use of jargon (technical terminology. That is plea for fair treatment made gangsta courtesy of gizoogle.com
February 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Thanks for the recap. Now I will enlighten reader to some of the previous comments by Capt. George and his first mate jes :
“Stir up fire or get it straight, charlie, or was it, oh yeah, Jerry.”
“I’ll take the colors back with you any day you want to ride the river!”
“J.T.A., Colors in case you don’t understand are RED WHITE & BLUE and not from where your coming from. In here you are for freedom or against freedom, and the only colors that matter are the true colors.”
“At least he’s not out there stealing tires…or not?”
“When you figure out what’s going on in here you can pick up the colors and take that ride down the river with us.”
WTF?!?
February 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
[...] included an update of District of Columbia vs. Heller and talked about a letter sent to the Washington Times from Montana’s Secretary of State, [...]
February 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Just a note. We will see and hear from time to time the idea that the constitutions 2nd amendment is for state run militias only.
This interpretation is born out of poor research if not down right purposeful misinformation.
The Federalist Papers, written by the guys who where there at the time, make it clear that citizen bodies of armed men could muster in times of need. Examples of need are discussed.
The point is they were to be armed from their personal store whatever that may be, but certainly privately owned weapons kept in their domicile was the idea.
The ability of the citizenry to muster and arm outside of any federal or state muster is the example. This is the “keep and bare” provision and has nothing to do with sanding armies state or federal.
In fact the example of an armed citizenry mustering to defend itself against a federal despot sending federal troops against them is used by Madison in the papers.
The second amendment is the citizens amendment and has nothing to do with state or federal powers to muster armies. The term militia is used in its most basic terms, a citizens muster.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm