Yes, really. Really [maybe -see below] . A line in the sand: If D.C. vs. Heller gives us some collective right nonsense, it would be the Union that has left Montana:
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.It was signed by Montana's Secretary of State.
I'm with Megan McArdle: time to take up residence in the Treasure State.
As I said in an email, giving the heads up to other gunbloggers, this isn't the action of a renegade secretary, he has the full support of
Also, McArdle says that it's doubtful they will secede should SCOTUS defy them... I agree, but then again that is some pretty clear language.
I've been re-reading over the piece in the Washington Times and reading over the Resolution Secy. Brad Johnson has on progunleaders.org and I didn't see the governor's support, though I assume he has it, and did see the state legislators supporting it. More importantly, it is sounding less like threat of secession and more like a refusal to obey a collective rights view, citing contractual obligations. But if you read through Montana's would've-been amicus brief, it comes down to this:
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.Read into that what you will. I also noticed this has apparently been circulating since Wednesday, so you have my apologies if it's old news to you.