The United State of Montana and how it affects the rest of us

The United State of Montana?!

http://progunleaders.org/resolution.html “Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller”

The 60^th Montana Legislature finds that a decision in favor of the District of Columbia will void their state Compact. In 1889 Montana joined the Union with the understanding that, among many other things, its citizen’s right to bear arms was protected under the Second Amendment. The wording used in this resolution suggests succession for Montana if the Supreme Court rules that the right of the individual to bear arms is not federally protected.

What is making Montana so mad? What does this have to do with the rest of us?

A LOT

http://occ.dc.gov/occ/frames.asp?doc=/occ/lib/occ/heller_cert_petition.pdf

District of Columbia v. Heller – “Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.” This is essentially calling into question whether or not the individual possession of a gun is federally protected by the Second Amendment.

This is a huge issue: Does the Second Amendment protect your individual right to bear arms? There seems to be no question that this Amendment allows for the formation of a state militia; many circuit courts have upheld this decision. However, the problem comes from the interpretation of individual right in the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Is that statement saying it is necessary to have a state militia and that the people have the right to bear arms OR is it saying those involved in the state militia are the only ones who have the right to bear arms? I believe it is the former. Nowhere in that statement does it necessarily imply that it is a requirement of bearing arms to be a member of the militia. The words “right of the people”, suggests the right to bear arms is universal; unless of course we also want to reinterpret the meaning of “the people.” Let me pause on that for a second. There is a possibility that I am interpreting the rhetoric of the late 1700’s incorrectly. Perhaps “the people” could have been interpreted in those days as meaning soldiers, militiamen or military personal. I searched the Constitution for other references to “the people” to perhaps clarify what the framers meant. The phrase “the people” is used numerous times, a few of the most noteworthy: in the preamble; “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” or in the First Amendment; “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” or in the Fourth Amendment; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”. It appears pretty clear that when the framers of the Constitution speak of “the people” they are speaking of the universal population. In fact, the only time the term “soldier” (or any synonym of that word) is used in the Constitution is in the Fourth Amendment when it is very specifically referring to an individual whose job is to fight in wars; “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”. Therefore it is necessary to interpret “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as the right of all people to “keep and bear Arms”.

It should be duly noted that this issue is not necessarily calling into question our right to gun ownership, but to whether or not ownership is protect by the federal government. The states are free to make up their own constitutions and laws as long as they do not infringe upon the principals set forth in the federal Constitution. As it is now, the state governments control the gun laws; such as what kinds of guns are legal to own and etc. Dick Heller and his buddies in Washington, D.C. are protesting D.C.’s anti-hand gun law saying that it infringes upon their Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms. This issue will now go before the Supreme Court on March 18. A ruling in favor of Heller would essentially say that gun ownership is a federally protected right. This would probably make strict gun control laws much more difficult to pass, since they would have to be passed at the federal level. A ruling against Heller would be a serious problem for gun owners since it would put much more power in the hands of the individual states to regulate gun ownership and use.

Interpretation of the wording used in the Second Amendment very clearly gives “the people” the federally protected right of gun ownership. A ruling against this would be a tremendous infringement upon our rights as American citizens.