Montana May Succeed From Union

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by LiveToShoot

It will be very interesting to see what comes of all this, and I'll keep the cash in my wallet for whatever is ahead...either a new gun and ammo or a bag of wheat.

Nothing more than a little "saber rattling" from a state that can ill-afford to go their separate way. Now take a state like California, Texas, or Florida, and you might just get their undivided attention!

[LiveToShoot]

Possibility of too many libs, with anti-gun thinking, in the larger population states for state-wide unity in such a strong pro-gun stand...and that's too bad because we need to get their attention before this goes too far.

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by LiveToShoot

Possibility of too many libs, with anti-gun thinking, in the larger population states for state-wide unity in such a strong pro-gun stand...and that's too bad because we need to get their attention before this goes too far.

I concure.

[just_a_car]

You may not have to move to Montana or a succeeded state to get those rights... Washington State, though liberal West of the Cascades and Conservative on the East, has had this "individual right" crud figured out since day one in our constitution

From Article 1:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

-http://www1.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/constitution.htm

Not only that, we have RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption that says the state laws on firearms supersede all local and municipal laws and any that are more restrictive or have harsher penalties are considered "preempted and repealed".

It was one of the more pro-active pro-gunners/Open-carriers that stated to me what I think is a truism of the West part of the state: "Washington State is a state of gun-toting liberals."

[Pred]

The only reason it would happen is if the courts rule that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. If that happens, all our guns become illegal. Montana leaving the union will be the least of this countries problems. Now, I have NO faith in our elected officials, but there is no way they can be that stupid. They rule our guns are illegal, enter the next civil war.

[troy2000]

Montana leaving the Union? Sure, that'll happen...

Although I like the attitude and spirit they're displaying.

I dunno about Montana being pretty year-round, though. Here in the Southland, you can't turn around in the winter without tripping over someone from there or Wyoming; seems like everyone who can afford the trip bails until spring. They come rolling in with the Canadians.

Kind of like the way the City of Phoenix picks up and moves en masse to San Diego for the summer, I guess...

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Pred

The only reason it would happen is if the courts rule that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. If that happens, all our guns become illegal. Montana leaving the union will be the least of this countries problems. Now, I have NO faith in our elected officials, but there is no way they can be that stupid. They rule our guns are illegal, enter the next civil war.

There would be nothing civil about it! This country would be filled with a stench of dead bodies in a week! More people would die in one day, than during the whole Civil War! It would never come down to that. The Government would pick some place like Lizard Gulch, Oklahoma to start with. They'd send in about 40 ATF agents and when they were met by a couple hundred angry and pissed off Okies with shotguns and .30-06's, it would be over in about two minutes! 32 dead agents, 4 wounded, and 4 MIA later, Uncle Sam would get the picture. By the way, there is no Lizard Gulch, Oklahoma and this scenario is fiction. No animals were harmed during this battle. My attorney approves this message!

[LarryO1970]

Brother Bob ... you hit the nail on the head. The politicians would be running scared knowing that the populous is ready to hunt them down and remove them from office.

Even the ATF, FBI ,NSA and every other acronym would be crazy to turn against the people. Some worry that the military will turn against the people... that will not happen. I would venture to guess that 98% of the veterans on this board would never turn against the people. The other 2% would be taken care of by the 98%.

It would be "Game Over" in Washington... there would be massive turn-over... almost all elected officials would be replaced immediately.

Unfortunately, I do see the politicians as being that stupid. They've dazzled us with their brilliance in the past... thus the lack of faith in our Govt. being at an all-time low.

[Deersniper]

Texas has that option, too. Isn't there a law saying states can't hold funds that are supposed to go the Feds? That would be an interesting situation for sure. I doesn't take all this mess to explain the meaning of "shall not be infringed".

[304REP!]

Well montanna could alway nullify the federal law within there state. But D.C. would just send federal police up there to enforce there laws.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by 304REP!

Well montanna could alway nullify the federal law within there state. But D.C. would just send federal police up there to enforce there laws.

Federal Police... just who are they?

[TXplt]

There's nothing in our Constitution which requires a state to remain in the union. However this was de-facto settled when our Civil War was fought because states attempted to leave over an issue. This was initiated by South Carolina attempting to "kick out" some of the Feds (i.e. the firing on Ft. Sumter) much like could really have happened anywhere. I doubt Montana would ever try to leave over anything (although they could declare Soverignity and require their citizens to withhold all federal funds i.e. pay no federal taxes whatsoever and send this $ to the state). Their "ace in the hole" would be that citizens pre Civil war weren't afraid of violence; now, spineless politicians abhor violence and bad publicity.

I do like the "message" they're sending to everyone, though.

[BattleRifleG3]

If the SCOTUS holds against the RKBA as an individual right, it would be an explicit act of ignorance of the US constitution. The US consititution is what unites the country. It's the agreement about what the federal government is, how federal powers and state powers interact, and what areas are off limits for the government.

It would be from that perspective that secession and/or civil war would begin. By violating the document that legitimizes the federal government in the eyes of the states and people, the federal government would violate its own legitimacy and invite an extra-constitutional replacement (ie military/militia coup) and/or secession by state governments. It would be the last nail in the coffin of the US Constitution because it would use the highest sub-constitutional authority against the Constitution with no means of appeal except for amending the Constitution itself, and that's what the RKBA is in the first place. Additionally, with the RKBA itself being a last resort, it being taken away unconstitutionally would force the hand of anyone willing to fight for it. Until this point, there were still avenues for appeal before reaching the last resort.

As far as what a secession would look like, I don't think it would blow up like South Carolina and Fort Sumpter, at least not initially. Unless someone started a violent act, it would be a protracted standoff. Lots of threats, little action. No one in the fed gov would want to look like an agressor, and no one in Montana, Alabama, or anywhere else would want to be the one that set off the fed gov. There would be protracted negotiations, and in the meantime other states would consider their options and tradeoffs. Utah for example might really like the prospect of legalizing polygamy. Other nations would get involved, some choosing to recognize the independence of the state. What would really get ugly would be if other nations became involved militarily. The USN could easily blockade the coast of Alabama. Texas wouldn't be so easy. Montana's border with Canada would be a whole different ballgame. Would the fed allow people in and out of the state? Would people immigrate in and out via Canada?

The way we would want a secession to happen would be to settle the dispute quickly and with minimal or no casualties. We would then need a new confederation encompassing all 50 states under a looser fed gov or some amenable alliance and trade agreement between seceded and federal states. Otherwise a long drawn out contest over independence would open up opportunities for our enemies.

Like an article written a while ago in response to a proposition of total gun confiscation, this is completely hypothetical. This is just analyzing and extrapolating the events that would likely occur if Montana went the way the letter suggests.

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

If the SCOTUS holds against the RKBA as an individual right, it would be an explicit act of ignorance of the US constitution. The US consititution is what unites the country. It's the agreement about what the federal government is, how federal powers and state powers interact, and what areas are off limits for the government.

It would be from that perspective that secession and/or civil war would begin. By violating the document that legitimizes the federal government in the eyes of the states and people, the federal government would violate its own legitimacy and invite an extra-constitutional replacement (ie military/militia coup) and/or secession by state governments. It would be the last nail in the coffin of the US Constitution because it would use the highest sub-constitutional authority against the Constitution with no means of appeal except for amending the Constitution itself, and that's what the RKBA is in the first place. Additionally, with the RKBA itself being a last resort, it being taken away unconstitutionally would force the hand of anyone willing to fight for it. Until this point, there were still avenues for appeal before reaching the last resort.

As far as what a secession would look like, I don't think it would blow up like South Carolina and Fort Sumpter, at least not initially. Unless someone started a violent act, it would be a protracted standoff. Lots of threats, little action. No one in the fed gov would want to look like an agressor, and no one in Montana, Alabama, or anywhere else would want to be the one that set off the fed gov. There would be protracted negotiations, and in the meantime other states would consider their options and tradeoffs. Utah for example might really like the prospect of legalizing polygamy. Other nations would get involved, some choosing to recognize the independence of the state. What would really get ugly would be if other nations became involved militarily. The USN could easily blockade the coast of Alabama. Texas wouldn't be so easy. Montana's border with Canada would be a whole different ballgame. Would the fed allow people in and out of the state? Would people immigrate in and out via Canada?

The way we would want a secession to happen would be to settle the dispute quickly and with minimal or no casualties. We would then need a new confederation encompassing all 50 states under a looser fed gov or some amenable alliance and trade agreement between seceded and federal states. Otherwise a long drawn out contest over independence would open up opportunities for our enemies.

Like an article written a while ago in response to a proposition of total gun confiscation, this is completely hypothetical. This is just analyzing and extrapolating the events that would likely occur if Montana went the way the letter suggests.

We've signed some kind of agreement with Canada to allow their troops on our soil and vise-versa, in case of an emergency. I believe Montana, seceding from the union would constitute such an emergency. Something to think about, anyway.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob

We've signed some kind of agreement with Canada to allow their troops on our soil and vise-versa, in case of an emergency. I believe Montana, seceding from the union would constitute such an emergency. Something to think about, anyway.

I don't know if that would be such a hot idea... not to mention heavy handed that would attract people like us to support Montana. If the U.S. Govt. wants a real fight they can't win... fighting their own citizens would prove disastrous. The military would not turn on the people and if they were the Canadians, the U.S. military would turn on the Canadians.

If the Canadian military were on our soil policing each state would create a very bad environment... not only at the political level but equally at the household level.

This is about as dumb as the NAFTA highway... if the people in general knew of these "agreements" ... they'd fight them.

[Mooseman684]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Federal Police... just who are they?

The same ones used at Waco and Ruby Ridge....

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

The same ones used at Waco and Ruby Ridge....

To use the ATF against a state? Don't see it happening, there aren't enough ATF agents... not to mention the Montana National Guard and Air Guard will not turn against the state, they are controlled by the Governor, not the Federal Govt.

It will be far too big of a can of worms for them to even consider opening.

[Mooseman684]

ATF, FBI, Nat. Park Police, U.S.Marshalls, Secret Service,NSA,DEA,..

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

ATF, FBI, Nat. Park Police, U.S.Marshalls, Secret Service,NSA,DEA,..

We all have our opinions... but wouldn't you think that the ATF, (looking for bombs entering ports, borders, etc.) FBI (hunting for Bin Laden & terrorists) , NSA (intercepting electronic communications from terrorists), DEA (borders and ports) and the Secret Service (only charter is to protect the President) would already be far too busy already?

I'm thinking they would be... not to mention, wouldn't turn against the citizens that way, especially for this reason.

[TXplt]

This could wind up being the "straw that broke the camel's back." We have probably the highest level of consumerism ever (i.e. most toys and highest "standard of living.") Yet there is widespread discontent -- people are tired of getting lied to, hearing spin, sued, searched without warrant, spied on, jailed (the U.S. has significantly more per capita people jailed than any other country), cuffed and beat up, tazed, forced to take off their shoes, told how to live by others, etc. We're told "zero tolerance" to make up for people in positions they shouldn't be who have zero judgment, zero leadership, and zero accountability. Children are taught drivel that's false, and there's widespread secularism and lack of responsibility. We pay money that goes nowhere when we face real issues by a congress and president who need to act, not talk.