POST SCRIPTS

DEAR SIRS;
IT IS VERY REFRESHING TO FINALLY SEE WE STILL HAVE SOME PATRIOTS LEFT IN AMERICA. I PUT 20 YEARS IN THE ARMY, SOME OF THOSE YEARS IN COMBAT DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY AND ITS CONSTITUTION. WHEN I RETURNED I FOUND OUT THAT WHILE I WAS AWAY, FOLKS IN OUR GOVERNMENT WERE TAKING OUR RIGHTS AWAY AND GRANTING RIGHTS TO PEOPLE OF OTHER NATIONS. THESE FOLKS SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS, THATS FINE, BUT WE SHOULDN'T GIVE UP ANY OF OURS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS AND WISH YOU GODS HELP IN THIS NOBEL CAUSE. I SINCERELY HOPE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF MY STATE OF TEXAS WILL JOIN YOU IN YOUR FIGHT.
THANK YOU AGAIN AMERICANS

This represents the fulfillment of a dream fo many of us; a state willing to put itself on the line for the Constitution of the UNITED States of America.

The challenges this places to a corrupt federal government are tremendous. Logistically, a Montana secession is a nightmare - and not just due to the PR problems it creates.

An international border, an educated widely-spread populace, and brutal terrain make applying a military resolution very risky and unpopular. A politcal solution will cost Washington prestige, a commodity which this administration is bleeding every day.

Montana, you are in my prayers over this issue.

I could not agree more. However, I hold out zero hope the gutless geeks in my state government will follow suit. First Sergeant Jack Lee

"The gun control laws all have one common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms."

Paranoid. Also false.

It will be challenged, but I doubt that the National Guard will be involved, as all this inflammatory prose would suggest ... just the Supreme Court.

There is a limit to how far-a-field the states can be allowed to roam. Those 30% interest rates on yer credit cards? Thank the State of South Dakota for that, South Dakota and a spineless, short-sighted federal administration. They passed their law and every consumer credit purveyor in the nation set up shop there. Fine in the short term for SD. Bad, bad, bad for the rest of us in the long term.

Can you imagine the fun, fun entities and/or people that will swarm into Montana if this passes. Shudder.

P.S.: To pass along to the ER techie: Looks like we can post, but the "preview" still doesn't work.

I wish that my state, Alabama will follow suit and do the same. My prayers are with the people of Montana.

Chris Sivley
USAF Retired

Here is just a few cases to ponder while considering what Montana is up against;

1.) Wickard v. Filburn (1942): In 1940 Roscoe Filburn, a farmer, produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted by Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1941... Charged by the government for violating the AAA, Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise and said he was subject to federal regulation. The Court ruled that home-grown wheat, in the Court's words, "supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market.”

This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

You could say that the Supreme Court gave the US government a constitutional right to punish anyone who may be more productive then other farmers.

2.) United States v. Lopez, (1995) Elias Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On 10 March 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges into the school. He was confronted by school authorities and admitted to having the weapon. Eventually he was charged with violating the federal statute against carrying fire arms into a public school. Lopez challenged the charge, claiming the federal governments statute had no jurisdiction in local school matters.

The Court however, ruled that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition of the country in two ways:

A.) Because violent crime causes damage and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe.
Montana case

B.) The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is obviously an important element of the nation's economic health.

3.) Gonzales v Raich (2005): This is a case that Jack may be very familiar with, because it originated from Butte County. Butte County residents Diane Monson's and Angel Raich were arrested and had their marijuana plants destroyed. Butte County Sheriff's Department charged the two with violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Monson and Raich claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, along with violating their Due Process Clause of the 5th, 9th, & 10th, amendments along with the doctrine of medical necessity.

In the case that reached the US Supreme Court, the Court ruled the Commerce Clause allows the United States Congress

"To regulate Commerce... among the several States,"

This case had two dissenting opinions, one by Justice Clarence Thomas. In his dissent, Judge Thomas wrote of his concern for the precedent set by the Court, he wrote;
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Now I hope and pray Montana wins out, but this is going to be interesting to watch. Precedent has been set by past Courts and so far none have overturned ruling made upon the commerce clause. To be a true victory, these precedents need to be overturned, and one of the judges who needs to rethink his stand is our friend Scalia.

It is my opinion that the reason the Democrat Governor signed this legislation is to look tough in a state that stands for gun rights, but votes for politicians who regularly vote with liberals in Washington. The Governor most likely believes this will be overturned and he did not have to get a bit of dirt on himself.

As some of the preceding case have shown, our federal court system will twist things any way they want to, to achieve the desired results (more control by the feds!). I find the language used by the framers of the constitution to be quite clear, and or federal legislators and courts do find a way to twist and turn, in general muddle up, what the framers wrote. Take the second amendment - not only does it say "keep" arms, but also "bear" arms. The "infringement" goes back to the firearms control act of 1934. Though it was a "tax act" it was still an infringement, and they haven't stopped since! What the gangsters were doing then was already illegal.
I served for over 24 years in the Marines, and this bleeds over into the military. Instead of enforcing the laws and regulations on the books and dropping the hammer on those who violate them, they just make more of them! Kudos to Montana! You too Oklahoma. Texas Follow suit! So should the other two dozen plus states that have started tenth amendment legislation. Now if we could get California and New York Legislators to get of their dead butts and show some backbone...!

Nick

My prayers for your success are with you !! We are finally getting to see some action in enforcing the rule of LAW and the foundations that our country was founded on. My heartfelt thanks to the legislature of Montana. I have encouraged my elected officials in Ohio to persue the same lines, and once again give the governemnt of the United States back to the people!!

I made a mistake in my comment. I noticed that the quote I gave from Scalia's opinion was the same I gave for the dissenting opinion by Thomas. Well here is the correct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent of the majority's ruling.

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

J. Thomas dissenting, Gonzales v Raich

I hope that someone can talk my state of Oklahoma into joining Montana and hopefully Texas into secession! Because if not I am moving to Montana. Thank you.

Thank God for a State like Montana and several other states following suite and declaring their 10th Amendment States Rights.

Should things get really ugly, I will feel better knowning that there are still a few good representatives left in America that are willing to take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the People because, isnt that what they took a oath to defend in the first place?

I live in Tennessee and we have declared our 10th Amendment Rights along with a "Gun Rights" law but its nothing in comparison to what Montana has put together but its better than nothing.

I pray that things work out in the end, although I doubt it. We have some evil people in the Federal Govt and all they want is more power and more money.

May God Bless Montana and the citizens of many other states gearing up to protect the Constitution and the People that reside in this country.

The only person that deserves freedom in this country is the one willing to fight and die for it. I have terminal cancer in the prostat, it maybe time to finially do some good for this country. I've worked with electronics for 36 years and beleive me I don't need a firearm to kill people in the govenment or the courts. And I can do it in very large numbers from remote sites and no one can see it or hear it. I'm tired of hearing so called patriots bitch and bitch, just do something about it...

Editors note: I'm very sorry to hear about your condition Daniel and wish you the best. I appreciate the passion you bring to our blog. The warriors spirit is an important and valuable asset for survival. Someone in your position has a particularly sensitive ear for those who complain and do nothing; time is very precious.

At Post Scripts we welcome all points of view with the intention of inviting debate and increasing knowledge and understanding. Although a patriot is one who is willing to defend our country with his life, a patriot is also someone who respects the structure of our government and the law.

If we aren't winning the argument perhaps it's because we haven't done a good enough job of communicating. I hope in your communications here you are just blowing off steam and I hope you will find ways to communicate that amounts to more than complaining.

God bless you Daniel.