This from the Patriot Post:
In the continuing saga of District of Columbia v. Heller, 39 of Montanaâ€™s elected officials have signed a resolution declaring that a Supreme Court ruling against the individual right of gun ownership would give their state grounds for leaving the union. It seems that when Montanaâ€™s settlers signed a statehood contract in 1889, one of the conditions was that the federal government agreed that individuals had the right to keep and bear arms. If the Supreme Court rules that firearm ownership is merely a state or â€œcollectiveâ€ right, Montana officials say that the statehood contract will have been breeched. â€œThe U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promises to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract,â€ Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a letter to The Washington Times. The Times also notes that the â€œcollective rightâ€ interpretation of the Second Amendment doesnâ€™t hold water in Montana because the state didnâ€™t have a militia in the 1880s. â€œItâ€™s pretty disingenuous as an argument,â€ Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said. â€œAt the time, they had no image of what a National Guard was. But history and logic donâ€™t always prevail in these matters.â€ Indeed. Our advice to the Supreme Court is that before they upset somebody with their ruling, they might want to consider which side has the guns.”
I could see my way to moving there.
Pulitzer-Prize-winning playwright, screenwriter, and film director David Mamet’s conversion from arch-liberal to conservative was pretty heartening, too.
I’m not a Republican. Nor anything like. But where guns and free markets and education and the US Constitution are concerned, I’m deeply conservative.