I’m afraid the desire to be able to carry in a neighboring state is leading people to push for unwise choices on this issue. I would like to be able to carry in Illinois, Texas, Colorado, etc. However, these states do not recognize my permit. Be that as it may, I would prefer to wait until these states choose to come on board because they have been persuaded that that is the best course of action for their people than that we rely on Congress to do this for us. Once we start asking Congress to help us carry our weapons, we start giving them the ability to tell us when, where, how and whether.
Very well said!
In entering the public service I took an oath to support the Constitution, which necessarily gives me a right to interpret it. Our institutions, according to my understanding, are founded upon the principle and right of self-government ( FEDERALISM )
In talking with several folks from California about this same issue. In restrictive States they look for answers from the federal branch. In places like Idaho or Utah we seek in restricting the watchful eye of big brother.
In Idaho our battle has always been with the federal variety of gun laws. Our sister State of Montana ( after the election of President Obama ) took the rights of it's residents at heart, told the fedgov to live by the constitution or else:
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District (“Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday).
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory.
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.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.
Montana secretary of state
We ARE winning this battle State by State. If the States must live by the Constitution, then so does the FedGov. It cannot be binding on one, leaving the other with no limits on power.
Last edited by American Made; November 15, 2011 at 08:06 AM.