Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > 'Any person' has right to gun, state says

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2008, 05:40 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
sculker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 247
Default 'Any person' has right to gun, state says



WEAPONS OF CHOICE
WorldNetDaily
'Any person' has right to gun, state says
Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2008
4:09 pm Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.

That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:


"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.

"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.


Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson

But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to "any person."

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.

"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.

The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.

Any other determination, they said, would "offend" the Compact, officials said.

"[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government," they said.

It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn't created until years later, officials said.

"Some speak of a 'living constitution,' the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a 'living contract,' one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation," the group said.

Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.


Paul Clemen




The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "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."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914


__________________

Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, and politicians. All three need supervision. —DICK ARMEY

sculker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 02-21-2008, 09:31 AM   #2
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculker View Post
"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.
That's an outstanding argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculker View Post
The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
Where is it written the government is responsible for our safety?

Mr. Clement wants to do away with provisions of the Constitution and inject his own idea of how the law ought to read.

I would add that everyone in this case is referring only to "firearms" yet 2A merely says "arms", which, when it was written, included firearms but also bombs, grenades, mortars and cannon; there were no limits established when 2A was written. Why do we believe establishing limits today is acceptable?
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2008, 11:27 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pioneer461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 938
Liked 27 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Way to go Montana!

Now I wonder whether Montana will follow
Vermont and Alaska, and abolish the requirement
for a permission slip to carry concealed arms?

__________________
Sui Juris
Cogito, ergo armatum sum
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
Retired Police Detective '71-'01 / LEOSA Certified
Naval Aviation Veteran '65-'69

United States Constitution (c) 1791
All Rights Reserved
pioneer461 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
The Person Above Me.... Dillinger The Club House 395 08-03-2010 05:06 PM



Newest Threads