http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/17/scotus.guns/index.html


Today, the Supreme Court will begin deciding whether or not the DC hand gun ban is constitutional or not. I'm pretty excited about this, it will have a massive impact either way. Personally, I'm hoping for a ruling upholding that it is unconstitutional. From what I read, we won't get a ruling until June though.


Err, from Wikipedia:

"Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a joint resolution advocating that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur."

Does this mean they are saying that Montana will leave the union? Or am I not understanding this correctly? Pretty bad ass if its the former, and Go Montana!


Edit:

Also from wiki: "On April 17th, 2007, Montana became the first state to pass legislation against the federal government's Real ID Act. Gov. Schweitzer signed a bill banning the Montana Motor Vehicle Division from enforcing the new regulations"

Montana keeps getting better and better. If they still ride horses and have cowboys and such, I'm so moving there.


Edit: Wanted to add in the subject: Slightly LC, as there isn't much to discuss here, I guess.

Sweet, no more federal funding to Wyoming.

If the Supreme Court cannot correctly interpret:
it will be 9/11x1,000 imo.

QFMFT

See ya soon!

Just about everywhere has really soft $1/2 NL games, theres a $300 pot cap though (which I never paid attention to when I dealt, shhh...). I heard they might get ride of the cap, but I doubt it.

Montana is a good state if you enjoy it being 50 below zero one day and 3 days later being 105 above. When my sister was born ( Jan. 1984) it was negative 92 degrees with the wind chill, no joke. The coldest I ever witness was -80 something with the wind chill.

Montana is good if you like the 2nd amendment. Everyone has the right to get a concealed weapons permit as long as they are not felons or have a violent criminal record. Theres gun ranges just about everywhere. The $300 I spent on my AK47 was the best $300 I ever spent.

If you are ever around Havre,MT and want to shoot some TVs or something, send me a message. Heres a video of me when I was like 17 shooting a TV with my AK http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z7U-BUr0oSE

I seriously think places like Montana will be the last to hold out against a tyrannical government. I hope they make good on their threat to leave the union too, hopefully other states will follow suite - that isn't to say actually leave the union, but to start the process, stir **** up.

And who doesn't like horses? I mean, really. What's the deal with rifles there, Wesker? Say I wanted to get an AR15, any need to register it or what?


edit: and the weather is not very tempting, tbh. Keep that **** out of your brochures, imo.

My grandpa actually owned a gun store here for over 20 years (my views on gun control should be obvious by now).If you wanted to buy an AR15 all you would have to do is go to a gun store and they would run a FBI background check on you to make sure you are not a felon or have any domestic violence charges on your record. If your records are good you hand them the monies and they hand you the rifle, the FBI registers the gun to you.

But thats only when you buy from a FFL (federal firearms licensed) dealer. If you were to buy a firearm from a private owner its all off the record (still legal).

Which is why the 2nd amendment is so important. The founding fathers were smart dudes. A common argument is that civilians with guns would never be able to stop our government if it got out of control, but I don't think people realize that our advanced military would be rendered useless against American insurgents because 99% of our military forces would have a real hard time killing other Americans.

As far as the weather goes, the past few years we have had relatively warm winters, the coldest it got this winter was -30.

That's why I'm so passionate about the 2nd amendment as well. I think either on this board or somewhere else some army guy or military guy was saying that the government would never be able to stop the people from a revolution. Especially considering the size of this country, and how many guns/person (90/100?), I agree.

I didn't know the Second Amendment had been amended.

Neither did I. The quote you quoted comes directly from the Second Amendment of the US Constitution IIRC.

Yeah, but the4thfilm didn't quote the part at the beginning where it explicitly says that the right to bear arms is for the security of The State DUH!!!!1!!!!11!!!!eleven!!!

Anyway, the Brady Campaign is setting themselves up to look good after a crushing defeat with language like the following:
Source

I'll make a prediction that is fairly common in legal circles now:

The Supreme Court will accept the "individual rights" interpretation, but will conclude that "reasonable restrictions" are fine. The decision will leave open what is meant by "reasonable," but the language will suggest that the vast majority of the current laws (criminal and regulatory) will pass muster.

The DC law, though, may not survive, because it really is just about the most extreme law out there. The Supreme Court will either rule the law unconstitutional outright, or remand the matter to the lower courts to apply their new standard.

In the very short run, many gun advocates will be happy because they will focus on the acceptance of the "individual rights" interpretation. But in the practical world, the court's approach will allow virtually all current restrictions to remain.

doesn't montana state const. say that no one is to be denied guns for any reason?

does that mean felons can own guns in montana?

of course you left out the part about a well regulated militia and what not. apparently that trips people up

On the contrary, in a democracy the desires of the densely populated urban centers of coastal cities will prevail over the sparsely populated rural areas of the interior. It seems that those rural areas would be first to object to the push of government that is largely driven by fancy pants city boys.

Excellent summary of what will likely happen.

Montana Const:
"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."

so does "any person" include felons?

You are saying the same thing. They will be the first to protest because they care most/are furthest politically from the direction we are heading. Thus they will also be ones to protest last, because by then nobody else will give a ****.

From SCOTUS blog:



Analysis

The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government could put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.

With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the deciding vote. There also remained a chance, it appeared, that Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the Court’s moderates, would be willing to support an individual right to have a gun — provided that a ruling left considerable room for government regulation of weapons, particularly in urban areas with high crime rates.

One of the most important aspects of the 98-minute hearing was the steadfast commitment that the federal government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, held to the position he had expressed in a brief that has come under heavy fire from inside the White House and from a wide swath of the gun-owning community. Clement had written that, while there should be an individual, private right to have a gun in one’s home, it should be subject to “reasonable regulation” by government. At the podium, he several times repeated his criticism of the D.C. Circuit Court for raising a higher constitutional bar to gun regulation — even though his critics (including Vice President Cheney) passionately support exactly what the Circuit Court did in striking down the District of Columbia’s 1976 ban on any private ownership or use of handguns.

If the Court were ultimately to rule that the Second Amendment’s promise of a “right to keep and bear arms” embraces a personal, individual right of self-defense at least in one’s home, it might also have to address what, if any, limits government might put on that right, and what constitutional standard to use in judging whether a particular law’s limitations would be valid. Thus, it was no surprise that many of the exchanges on Tuesday dwelled on both of those issues, with no sign of anything close to a consensus on the answers.

Fine. I agree to use my arms, if need be, for the security of the state.

To everyone so concerned about the "Militia" language, I've found a way to make you happy. Gun permits will freely be given to any non felon. Upon recieving your permit, you will be asked to raise your right hand, and swear/affirm to use your firearms to protect and defend the constitutions of the US and (insert State here) if need be.

Congrats. You are now part of a "Well Regulated Militia".

You will then attend a 68 hour firearms training/proficiency course, where you will recieve your permit at graduation. You will attend training every 24 months to maintain proficiency.

Fair enough?

The militia clause is meaningless, do you see why?

hint: I just formed my own militia.

natedogg

Exactly. That was what I was trying to illustrate in a round-a-bout way.

Edited to Add: I can't decide whether to form my own militia or seek membership in natedogg's.

I'm IN!

A 2+2 militia would have credence accross state lines, imo.

I hereby declare myself "Commander Of Southern Forces - 2+2 Militia"