Montana threatening secession!!!

[Tugboat1988]

Hey Tugboat. Actually I posted those links to make it easier for that other poster to read the rest.

As far as your post:

I am curious what you have in mind. I work in the water business myself, am rather familiar with public water systems and am not sure what exactly you mean by this.

Has to do, in part, with http://www.epa.gov/dclead/sdwa.htm

I'll try to send a private message to you so we can discuss it. At the top where you see Welcome, INforRP, you'll see Private Messages. You'll see Unread 1, Total 1 if I'm successful. I believe you can click on Private Messages and get my message. I'll do this because it will drift this off topic if we do it here. (T)

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

This is a great topic but maybe it should be under General Politics or National Sovereignty.

It might belong here considering how the Union handles secession.

 

[Tugboat1988]

It might belong here considering how the Union handles secession.

I have no objections. As I said, it's a good topic, and there is a similar one in General Politics. It's good here as well.

 

[PismoPam]

Can we watch the Supreme Court case?

I have been following all the stuff about the Supremes finally deciding to check out the 2nd amendment - will it be televised so that we can see the arguement?
I live 1/2 time in California (thank you God for the ocean) and 1/2 time in Montana, SO excited to see Montana's reaction to this! WOW!
Also, http://www.2asisters.org has a wonderful brief they filed, full of great stories about people defending themselves.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

State of Jefferson

I wish the State of Jefferson would secede. This is different from the free state project. See link for more details.
http://www.jeffersonstate.com/

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Whatever the SCOTUS says about 2A is moot. They are a branch of a dying regime.

 

[xd9fan]

the states that agreed to the creation of the Federal Govt...reserve the RIGHT...to leave.

Its beautiful.


I'm extremely surprised the SC took this case. I cant believe they would not let the dc ruling stand.....but then again the lower courts are split.....

 

[foofighter20x]

the states that agreed to the creation of the Federal Govt...reserve the RIGHT...to leave.

Its beautiful.

I'm extremely surprised the SC took this case. I cant believe they would not let the dc ruling stand.....but then again the lower courts are split.....

I don't know why people are so worried...

1. It only takes a vote of 4 justices to hear a case.
2. It just might be that the justices wanting to hear the case are trying to affirm the ruling of the lower court while at the same time expanding it throughout the entire nation.
3. Before SDO retired, it was likely that either Kennedy or O'Connor would have been the swing vote. Now it all hinges on Kennedy, so really, I'd be looking at how he's ruled on past gun cases for insight into how the Court will hold...

 

[OddballAZ]

I don't know why people are so worried...

1. It only takes a vote of 4 justices to hear a case.
2. It just might be that the justices wanting to hear the case are trying to affirm the ruling of the lower court while at the same time expanding it throughout the entire nation.
3. Before SDO retired, it was likely that either Kennedy or O'Connor would have been the swing vote. Now it all hinges on Kennedy, so really, I'd be looking at how he's ruled on past gun cases for insight into how the Court will hold...

I think the ruling will be in favor of the Second Amendment meaning what it says, that it's a right of the people to keep in bear arms. I have no doubts that Thomas, Scalia and Alito would LOVE to rule on this and rule in favor of it being an individual right. Roberts is also supposed to be pro gun. Kennedy will be the swing vote. Looking at his past rulings he will probably vote in favor of it being an individual right.

It will be VERY hard for the other 4 liberal wackos on the court to even justify saying the Second Amendment is anything other than an individual right but they will try. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from the US Constitution, state Constitutions, and the documents the founding fathers wrote that all clearly state the right belongs to individual citizens.

They may still say something like gun control in the case of people who have lost their rights such as felons or mental cases (deemed to be nuts by a court of law) is ok. But things like the DC ban have gone way to far. Hopefully there will be plenty of ammo in the ruling to go after many of the laws in CA, IL and other anti gun states.

A ruling in favor of the collectivist theory will pretty much be the final nail in the coffin for the illusion of freedom in this country. That will be a deceleration of war on the American people and we will have a duty to fulfill at that point. They would still have to make it a law banning firearm ownership. Such a ruling would conflict with 40 something state Constitutions. But lets hope the tools who would want to make a total ban would all be ran out of office by armed citizens before they get the chance.

 

[OddballAZ]

Az Hcr2034

Here is something I found out about my own state, AZ in "Boston's Gun Bible" (38/6).

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/bills/hcr2034p.htm

I'm not sure if it passed or not. The book doesn't say if it did but I assume it did. Does anyone know?

 

[Paul Revered]

I posted the OP on MySpace.