Source: https://www.nationalwriterssyndicate.com/whether-d-c-laws-violate-the-second-amendment-rights-of-individuals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:44:18+00:00

Document:
Although having narrowed the question under consideration, the Court must necessarily decide whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, or a collective right for states to arm their National Guards.
Texas. To resolve this difference is at least part of what will result from the Court’s consideration of Heller.
About the facts in Heller much has been written. It is not necessary to reproduce that discussion here.
What is important here is that what the Court rules in Heller will have import far beyond the narrow focus of the Court’s declared intent. The Court’s ruling will have an impact on all states, and upon all people living those states. It is the purpose of this essay to disclose one considerable impact that may not be apparent unless this argument is advanced to the Court.
Montana, this argument may be valid for most, if not all, other states.
United States, a contract entered into in 1889, a time when no authority seriously held a collective right view and therefore no part of the intent of the contracting parties.
Webster’s, 1884; and Black’s, 1910. “The terms ‘compact’ and ‘contract’ are synonymous. Green v.
The only difference between a compact and a contract in any reasonable usage of the terms as they apply here is that a compact is more generally an agreement between or among states.
Montana’s Compact shares many points in common with usual, bilateral contracts. It includes competent parties, subject matter, legal considerations, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.
Montana’s Compact. Treaty defined: Black’s, 1910; and Bouvier’s. 1856.
Ed. 642. When made with an Indian tribe its words are to be construed as an Indian would understand them; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U,S, 1, 20, Sup. Ct. 1, 44 L. Ed. 49.” and “While they are to be liberally construed, they are to be read in the light of conditions existing when entered into, with a view to effecting the objects of the parties; Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 Sup.
When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution of 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to “any person.”. The right to bear arms reservation was at Article III, Section 13 of the 1889 Montana Constitution. This was exactly the same language as used in the territorial Montana Constitution of 1884. The language was unchanged in the revision and readoption of the Montana Constitution in 1972, with the RKBA provision being lodged at Article II, Section 12.
Montana reserved themselves this right they somehow meant to confer authority to government actors.
Militia Act of 1903 was the beginning of the National Guard and directed the federalization of the National Guard. “The National Defense Act of 1916 … transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army – and made the term ‘National Guard’ mandatory”. Since the National Guard was not invented or authorized until after 1900, there could have been no understanding in 1889 that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to authorize the states to arm the National Guard.
Montana had reserved the right of “any person” to bear arms, and found that reservation not inconsistent with the federal system and the Second Amendment. “It is further to be observed that treaties are the subject of careful consideration before they are entered into, and are drawn by persons competent to express their meaning, and to choose apt words in which to embody the purposes of the high contracting parties.” (Rocca v.
Montana in 1889 via Ordinance 1.
Montana, “any person” had the right to bear arms.
Montana proffering an acceptable state constitution. That constitution, as it was accepted by Congress and the President, included the reservation of the right of “any person” to bear arms, a clearly individual right maintained and asserted today in exactly the same verbiage used in 1889.
Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.
Montana’s contract, because it would be in conflict with the intent of the parties of the contract at the time the parties entered into that contract.
Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.
 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1839; “COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement; In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters.
 Bouvier’s Law dictionary, 1856; “COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement. In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters.
Com’pact, n. [Lat. compactum, from compacisci, compactum, from com, for con, and pacisci and pangere.] An agreement between parties; covenant or contract; – either of individuals, or of nations.
“The law of nations depends on mutual compacts, treaties, leagues &c.
Wedlock is described as the indissoluble compact.
 Black’s Law Dictionary, 1910; “COMPACT. An agreement or contract. Usually applied to conventions between nations or sovereign states.
“A compact is a mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1.
 Black’s Law dictionary, 1910; “TREATY. In international law. An agreement between two or more independent states. Brande (Brande’s Dictionary of Science. GM). An agreement, league or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state.
Georgia, 5 Pet. 60, 8 L. Ed. 25; Edye v.
Next Story → Tyrants can’t exist without victims. Guard your vote and liberty jeolously.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.