Dr D

We live in interesting times. If the supreme court decides that its a group right rather than an individual right the contract that made montana a state is null and void. -----OR---- Contracts may now be interpreted liberally after the fact thus destroying contract law in its entirety. Cool stuff! Does this mean I will be a Montanan and not a US citizen? HMMMMMM

List of elected Montana officials concurring in the Resolution concerning Montana's contract rights and the Second Amendment in the D.C. v. Heller case: Congressman Denny Rehberg, Montana-At Large 1201 Grand Avenue, Suite #1 Billings, MT 59102 406-256-1019 Brad Johnson Montana Secretary of State Capitol Station Helena, Montana 59620 406-444-2807 Senator Aubyn Curtiss, Senate District 1 P.O. Box 216 Fortine, Montana 59918 406-882-4448 Senator Jerry O'Neil, Senate District 3 985 Walsh Road Columbia Falls, Montana 59912 406-892-7602 Senator Greg Barkus, Senate District 4 P.O. Box 2647 Kalispell, Montana 59903 406-755-8362 Senator Verdell Jackson, Senate District 5 555 Wagner Lane Kalispell, Montana 59901 406-756-8344 Senator John Brueggeman, Senate District 6 39341 Lakeview Drive Polson, MT 59860 406-883-2395 Senator Jim Elliott, Senate District 7 Chair, Committee on Committees and Taxation Committee 100 Trout Creek Road Trout Creek, Montana 59874 406-827-3671 Senator Joe Tropila, Senate District 13 Chair, Fish and Game Committee 209 2nd Street N.W. Great Falls, Montana 59404 406-453-1124 Senator Jerry Black, Senate District 14 445 O'Haire Boulevard Shelby, Montana 59474 406-434-5363 Senator Jim Peterson, Senate District 15 RR1, Box 2 Buffalo, Montana 59418 406-374-2277 Senator Lane Larson, Senate District 22 1417 Cedar Canyon Road Billings, Montana 59101 406-256-6316 Senator Roy Brown, Senate District 25 P.O. Box 22273 Billings, Montana 59104 406-252-5554 Senator Jeff Essmann, Senate District 28 2101 Grand Avenue # 5 Billings, Montana 59108 406-259-8404 Senator Joe Balyeat, Senate District 34 6909 Rising Eagle Road Bozeman, Montana 59715 406-586-1838 Senator Gary Perry, Senate District 35 3325 W. Cedar Meadow Lane Manhattan, Montana 59741 406-282-7477 Senator Terry Murphy, Senate District 39 893 boulder Cutoff Road Cardwell, Montana 59721 406-285-6937 Representative Chas Vincent, House District 2 5957 Champion Road Libby, Montana 59923 406-293-1575 Representative Bill Beck, House District 6 P.O. Box 2049 Whitefish, Montana 59937 406-862-2022 Representative Bill Jones, House District 9 567 East Village Drive Bigfork, Montana 59911 406-837-5760 Representative Mark Blasdel, House District 10 P.O. Box 291 Somers, Montana 59932 406-857-2010 Representative Rick Jore, House District 12 30488 Mount Harding Lane Ronal, Montana 59864 406-644-2542 Representative Gordon R. Hendrick, House District 14 P.O. Box 262 Superior, Montana 59872 406-822-4938 Representative Rick Ripley, House District 17 8920 Montana Highway 200 Wolf Creek, Montana 59648 406-562-3505 Representative Jesse O'Hara, House District 18 2221 Holly Court Great Falls, Montana 59404 406-761-0088 Representative Ed Butcher, House District 29 7550 Butcher Rd Winifred, Montana 59489 406-462-5627 Representative Wayne Stahl, House District 35 P.O. Box 345 Saco, Montana 59261 406-527-3321 Representative Ed Hilbert, House District 38 120 Hillcrest Avenue Glendive, Montana 59330 406-377-1630 Representative Bill McChesney, House District 40 316 Missouri Avenue MilesCity, Montana 59301 406-853-2826 Representative Alan Olson, House District 45 18 Halfbreed Creek Road Roundup, Montana 59072 406-323-3341 Representative Ken Peterson, House District 46 424 48th Street West Billings, Montana 59106 406-534-2376 Representative Tom McGillvray, House District 50 3642 Donna Drive Billings, Montana 59102 406-656-7542 Representative Arlene Becker, House District 52 1440 Lewis Avenue Billings, Montana 59102 406-245-7256 Representative Rep. Michael Lange, House District 55 208 Fair Park Drive Billings, Montana 59102 406-651-2084 Representative Krayton Kerns, House District 58 1408 Golf Course Road Laurel, Montana 59044 406-628-8438 Representative Bob Ebinger, House District 62 128 South Yellowstone Street Livingston, Montana 59047 406-222-0438 Representative Scott Sales, House District 68 Speaker of the House 5200 Bostwick Road Bozeman, Montana 59715 406-587-0047 Representative Jack Wells, House District 69 150 Coulee Drive Bozeman, Montana 59718 406-586-7872 Representative Roger Koopman, House District 70 811 South Tracy Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715 406-587-7555 Representative Diane Rice, House District 71 Chair, House Judiciary Committee P.O. Box 216 Harrison, Montana 59735 406-685-3468 Representative Debby Barrett, House District 72 Speaker Pro Tempore 18580 Hwy. 324 Dillon , Montana 59725 406-681-3177 Representative Scott Mendenhall. House District 77 Chair, Business and Labor Committee 214 Solomon Mountain Road Clancy, Montana 59634 406-933-5831 Representative Gary MacLaren, House District 89 429 Curlew Orchard Road Victor, Montana 59875 406-642-3887 Representative Ray Hawk, House District 90 N.W. 4878 Hobbitt Lane Florence, Montana 59833 406-777-5120

Montana Secretary of StateBrad Johnson'sComment in the Washington Times <BIG><BIG> </BIG></BIG> <BIG><BIG><SMALL>A .pdf file of the letter Johnson sent to the Washington Times is HERE.The link to the Washington Times print of Johnson's letter is HERE. Brad Johnson's news release about this (MSWord, .doc file) is HERE. The text of Johnson's letter, as printed, is as follows: </SMALL></BIG></BIG>Second Amendment an individual right 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. BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont.

AN EXTRA-SESSION RESOLUTION OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS OF THE 60TH MONTANA LEGISLATURE AND OTHER ELECTED MONTANA OFFICIALS URGING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT ANY "COLLECTIVE RIGHTS" HOLDING IN D.C. V. HELLER WILL VIOLATE MONTANA'S COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE CONTRACT BY WHICH MONTANA ENTERED THE UNION IN 1889. WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court (Court) has agreed to review and decide the case of D.C. v. Heller appealed to it from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; WHEREAS, the Court has agreed to consider the question, "Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes"; WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana; WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution; WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract; WHEREAS, the wording of the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms, now Article II, Section 12, exist today in form and wording identical to that agreed upon by the citizens of Montana and the United States in 1889 and unchanged since then; and WHEREAS, a contract, compact or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time entered into. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows: 1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and 2. That the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms are both statements securing a preexisting right from government interference, and do not confer any boon of government upon the people; and 3. The level of review for the Montana right to bear arms and for the Second Amendment are specified within those declared rights -- "shall not be infringed" for the Second Amendment, and "shall not be called in question" for the Montana right to bear arms; 4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller; 5. The undersigned incorporate by reference here a more thorough, attached explanation of the contract argument advanced; and 6. The undersigned legislators appreciate the attention of the Court to this argument on behalf of Montana and its citizens. Supporting argument Elected officials in concurrence: Current list

District of Columbia v. Heller From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search <!-- start content --><TABLE class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-notice"><TBODY><TR><TD class=ambox-image> </TD><TD class=ambox-text>This article documents an ongoing legal case. <SMALL>Information may change rapidly as the case progresses.</SMALL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=infobox style="WIDTH: 25em"><TBODY><TR><TH style="FONT-STYLE: italic; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6699ff">District of Columbia v. Heller</TH></TR><TR><TH style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"> Supreme Court of the United States</TH></TR><TR><TH style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6699ff">Argued March 18, 2008 </TH></TR><TR><TD><TABLE class=plainlinksneverexpand style="FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN: auto"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Full case name:</TD><TD style="FONT-STYLE: italic">District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Docket #:</TD><TD>07-290</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Citations:</TD><TD>U.S.</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD style="valign: top">Prior history:</TD><TD>Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD style="valign: top">Procedural history:</TD><TD>Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD style="valign: top">Argument:</TD><TD>Link to Oral Argument</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TH style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6699ff">Holding</TH></TR><TR><TD>Decision due June 26, 2008.</TD></TR><TR><TH style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6699ff">Court membership</TH></TR><TR><TD>Chief Justice: John Glover Roberts, Jr. Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito</TD></TR><TR><TH style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #6699ff">Case opinions</TH></TR><TR align=left><TD></TD></TR><TR style="BACKGROUND: #6699ff; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><TH colSpan=2>Laws applied</TH></TR><TR><TD>U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), § 22-4504, § 7-2507.02</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, is a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to expressly interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms for private use.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP> The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on March 18, 2008<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2]</SUP> and a decision is expected to be handed down on June 26, 2008.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3]</SUP> <TABLE class=toc id=toc summary=Contents><TBODY><TR><TD>Contents [hide] <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Background of the case <LI class=toclevel-1>2 D.C. Circuit's decision <LI class=toclevel-2>2.1 Henderson's dissent 2.2 Petition for rehearing<LI class=toclevel-1>3 Supreme Court review 3.1 Oral argument<LI class=toclevel-1>4 Non-party involvement <LI class=toclevel-2>4.1 National Rifle Association 4.2 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence<LI class=toclevel-1>5 Amicus curiae briefs <LI class=toclevel-1>6 Political reaction <LI class=toclevel-1>7 Scholarly commentary <LI class=toclevel-1>8 References 8.1 Other references [*]9 External links </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>//<![CDATA[ if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //]]></SCRIPT> [edit] Background of the case In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he personally had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar and believer in individual rights, he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to mirror his campaign on the work of Thurgood Marshall.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4]</SUP> They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of age, race, and economics. They eventually picked Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. Before the case, Levy knew only Tom Palmer, a colleague from the Cato Institute, and none of the six knew each other.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5]</SUP> In February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricts residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also requires that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5>[6]</SUP> The District Court dismissed the lawsuit. [edit] D.C. Circuit's decision On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2-1 decision, striking down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court's opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting. The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that the plaintiff Heller—who applied for a handgun permit but was denied—had standing. <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6>[7]</SUP></TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III): <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The court concluded: <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-dc-circuit-opinion_7-0>[8]</SUP> <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> [edit] Henderson's dissent In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote: <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-8>[9]</SUP></TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> [edit] Petition for rehearing In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-petition_9-0>[10]</SUP> On May 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote. [edit] Supreme Court review Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller). The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes." As discussed below, the Supreme Court adopted neither question, but came closer to the question posed by Heller in framing the question to include review of the District's prohibitions against possession of all types of firearms, and not just handguns. The District of Columbia and Mayor Fenty petitioned the Supreme Court on September 4, 2007, to overturn a portion of the lower court's ruling. The Washington Post noted that most legal experts believed the Supreme Court would likely accept the case. Now that the Court has granted certiorari, this will likely be the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court has directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-10>[11]</SUP> Five of the original plaintiffs in the case cross-petitioned the Supreme Court on September 10, 2007 to reinstate their legal claims against the District. The appellate court ruling held that of the original six plaintiffs, only Heller had the necessary standing to challenge the law. The five plaintiffs other than Heller now ask that the court restore their case against the district. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-11>[12]</SUP> The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 20, 2007.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-12>[13]</SUP> The court has rephrased the question to be decided as follows: <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> [edit] Oral argument The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on March 18, 2008, and is expected to publish its decision in late June of 2008. Both the transcript<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-13>[14]</SUP> and the audio<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-14>[15]</SUP> of the argument have been released. Each side was initially allotted 30 minutes to argue its case, with U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement allotted 15 minutes to present the federal government's views<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-wp-oral-args_15-0>[16]</SUP>. During the argument, however, extra time was extended to the parties, and the argument ran 23 minutes over the allotted time.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-16>[17]</SUP> Walter E. Dellinger of the law firm O’Melveny & Myers argued the District's side before the Supreme Court. Mr. Dellinger was assisted by Thomas Goldstein of the Akin Gump law firm, Robert Long of the Covington & Burling law firm and D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim. The law firms assisting the District are working pro bono.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-17>[18]</SUP> Alan Gura, of the DC Based law firm Gura & Possessky, is lead counsel for Mr. Heller and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-18>[19]</SUP> Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, are his co-counsel.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-19>[20]</SUP> <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Greg_Stohr_Bloomberg.com_20-0>[21]</SUP> [edit] Non-party involvement This case has faced opposition and involvement both from groups for and against expanded gun rights. The National Rifle Association was initially not supportive of the case because it feared it might not be successful. The NRA has since reconciled with the plaintiffs. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence lobbied to have DC gun laws changed so the case would be moot and not eligible to be heard by the Supreme Court. [edit] National Rifle Association Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-21>[22]</SUP> These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-22>[23]</SUP> Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-23>[24]</SUP> Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. “There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written,” Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy’s team were now on good terms.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-24>[25]</SUP> Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin "If Parker is the long-awaited “clean” case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment—including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-McArdle_25-0>[26]</SUP> Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-26>[27]</SUP> [edit] Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is opposed to the arguments made by the plaintiffs in Parker, and filed amicus briefs against those arguments in both the District and Circuit courts. Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, suggested to D.C. before the Court granted certiorari that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-27>[28]</SUP> Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it "could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-28>[29]</SUP> [edit] Amicus curiae briefs Due to the controversial nature of the case, it has garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of these groups have filed amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-29>[30]</SUP> A majority of the members of Congress<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-30>[31]</SUP> have signed the friend of the court brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Holbrook_31-0>[32]</SUP> Vice President Dick Cheney, in what may be an unprecedented departure for a vice president, has joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the administration's official position.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-32>[33]</SUP> Presumptive Republican nominee for President, Arizona Senator John McCain, has also signed the brief. Presumptive Democratic nominee, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, has not.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-presidential_candidates_33-0>[34]</SUP> A majority of the states have signed the brief of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott advising that the case be affirmed while at the same time emphasizing that the states have a strong interest in maintaining each of the states' laws prohibiting and regulating firearms.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Texas_34-0>[35]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-35>[36]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-36>[37]</SUP> A number of organizations have signed friend of the court briefs advising that the case be remanded, including the United States Department of Justice<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-USDOJ_37-0>[38]</SUP>, Attorneys General of New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Puerto Rico.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-38>[39]</SUP> Additionally, friend of the court briefs to remand have been filed by a spectrum of religious and anti-violence groups,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-39>[40]</SUP> a number of cities and mayors,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-40>[41]</SUP> and many police chiefs and law enforcement organizations.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-41>[42]</SUP> [edit] Political reaction Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a joint resolution asserting that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur. <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-42>[43]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-43>[44]</SUP> [edit] Scholarly commentary Various experts have expressed opinions on the D.C. Circuit's decision. Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe contends that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and predicted that if Parker is reviewed by the Supreme Court "there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-McArdle_25-1>[26]</SUP> However, Professor Tribe has also argued that the District's ban on one class of weapons does not violate the Second Amendment even under an individual rights view.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-44>[45]</SUP> Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of University of California, Irvine, argued that the District of Columbia's handgun laws, even assuming an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, could be justified as reasonable regulations and thus upheld as constitutional. Professor Chemerinsky believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way "as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law" and "be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-45>[46]</SUP> Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court's ruling but describes that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons: <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-46>[47]</SUP></TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

very nice. I love his stuff. I got the pleasure of demoing a few of his soft boot/soft groom carvers this season. loads of fun. he's got some great ideas kicking around inhis head.

:lol::lol::lol: couldn't help but notice they were speaking what sounded like french! It must be a european thing;) disclaimer ( no offense to our many french speaking members, I realize that there are many funny things about americans from your side of the fence, feel free to jab away in return )

We had a few diehard ohioans showing up every year anyway so we decided to invite you all. WE eagerly await the setting of the dates! Shred is the traditional setter of dates even though he stood us up last season:eplus2:

well it snowed for 14 hours straight and then turned to rain. It never froze and we still have 2-3 inches on the ground. No idea how much snow we really got as it was melting as fast as it fell. crazy day but not unheard of in june.

It has been snowing in bigfork down on the lake for 9 hrs straight. we have 2 inches accumulation on warm ground. It can't melt fast enough:freak3: Biggest storm of the year and its on June 10:eek: If next season is as good as the last one we will have to change the name to the Big mtn powder fest:D

40 days on the mtn and 6 inches of fresh on 80-85% of them. Unreal season downers only two days of really good groom due to all the fresh powder:eek:

Boards are cheap and plentiful at the pawnshop this time of year. I bought several last year at 15$ a piece. I currently have 6 or so different shapes cut down from snowboards. Its a great father son project. His buddies all come and want to borrow a board when he is out riding.

IT has been snowing steady and hard since 7am this morning. It is now 4pm Even with the snow year we had it never snowed more than a couple hours down at this elevation. The summer folk and my tomatoes are pissed but it sure is fun to see:eplus2: over 8 inches already above 4000 ft in some areas. Somebody call Al Gore and have him explain this cause I am confused:eplus2:

Lactic acid overproduction is viewed as more or less normal now days. While some production is normal it is likely that poor conditioning and poor diet are responsible for most of it. By taking a supplement and exercising regularly your body is simply adapting to your level of performance and not producing as much. Plus the energy boost you get from the product would tend to help you push through and improve your performance.

This is a full on winter storm. It is snowing hard and is sticking:eek: probably an inch on unfrozen ground. This Global warming is really something :rolleyes: I heard 2 inches in missoula already. Its supposed to snow at least two feet on the mountain today getting worse as the day goes on. I am at 3200 feet and the snowline was predicted above 4500 or so.:D Welcome to montana:D

The burton is made from a stat 6 and is quite stiff. The garage is made from a (gasp) new garage board that had cosmetic problems in the nose area. Jon allowed me to modify it into a skateboard since the offending area was removed. I later added grip tape in the general area of my stance angles.

BUT .. I have several decks made from old snowboards that pump amazingly well with randall II 180's set up loose with the softest bushings I could find and ABEC 11 no schools or the like. they flex an insane amount but you can work a vertical motion into the pump and the board gives it all back when it recambers. loads of fun. miles without a foot on the pavement.

sportlegs is calcium lactate which in theory tricks the body into producing less lactic acid. there is calcium ascorbate in emergenC but its not the same thing. EmergenC is a great natural energizer though and its B's are much more balanced than regular energy drinks. The basic C mixes are the best. Any of them would be beneficial though. some of the other products ie bone health etc. have less C and more other stuff. the vit C mineral ascorbates are the effective part as well as the B vitamins. I tell my patients to choose the flavor they will actually take. It doesn't do any good on the shelf. they also make a fantastic electrolyte product called electromix its in the same little packets but it gets mixed with a liter of water instead of 4 oz. Great for summer rehydration. I also run it in my camelbak on the mtn all winter. just a hint of lemon-lime flavor to the water when it is desolved

We are flirting with the biggest flood since 1964 here. more snow in the mountains down to 4000 ft. and raining like the great flood here now. the rivers are just under flood stage and have been for six weeks. a serious warm snap now would float us for sure.

Glad to hear your take on statins skatha. There is some very good science that says we don't need to worry as much about cholesterol as we do. It really is secondary to the process of coronary artery disease. the latest research says that Acidic blood is the culprit (jury is still out on the cause of that) homocysteine is one likely suspect as are acid causing foods. Homocysteine is an amino acid byproduct from the breakdown of proteins. If you are deficient in Bvitamins you don't process it quickly enough and it acidifies your blood. there are many foods that would do the same thing. the worst offenders are highly processed and highly sugared foods. The acid actually burns the lining of your arteries. your Bodies natural response is to manufacture its own cholesterol and use it to coat the burn. Its a protective response. If this happens over and over repeatedly you get clogged arteries. Sometimes the body adds calcium in extreme cases and youget hardening of the arteries. ITs easily reversed and easily avoided by limiting acid forming foods in your diet. there are several alkiline diets out there. some foods will suprise you. oranges are acid but they are actually good at reducing blood acids. Interestingly enough Cancer loves acidic environments and most disease causing bacteria do as well. Alkaline blood will help prevent most cancer and most bacterial infections. One product that is easy to get (walmart has it the cheapest) and that works well at reducing this problem is called Emergen-C one or two packets a day over the course of a year (anecdotally) has been shown to dramatically reduce artery plaqueing. It is basically The alkaline form of vit C combined with B vitamins. the alkaline chemistry buffers blood acids, the vit C strengthens the arterial walls, and the B vitamins help reduce homocysteine levels. Statins are Bad. All of your brain hormones and neurotransmitters are built from cholesterol. Statin drugs are being found to cause DEMENTIA. You need cholesterol to live. any level under 250 is ok in my book. especially if the HDL's are high as well. You may remember a few years ago the "Safe" levels were much higher. When the Drug companies maxed out market share they put out research that supported lower "SAFE" levels of cholesterol so they could sell more statins. The most recent research shows that people on statins have the same incidence of heart attack as those not on statins. So they don't help prevent heart attacks anyway. Long winded sorry hope it helps:D

try arnica gel on the foot itself and alternate your hot and cold treatments 15 minutes each. lots of gentle stretching even if its sore.

I would link dietary causes of autism to food additives. Many of these chemicals mimic body chemistry well enough to confuse the body. there are over 1000 chemicals currently legal to label as spice according to the FDA. Simply lobbby with enough dollars and you to can get your chemical additive magically transformed into a spice. there are lots of others that are simply labeled as chemicals and commonly accepted. Read Excitotoxins : the taste that kills http://www.amazon.com/Excitotoxins-Taste-Russell-L-Blaylock/dp/0929173252

IMHO many diseases have a background level of occurrence that happens for no apparent reason. mad cow disease in cows for instance. no matter what you do there will be so many cases per thousand present. when that background level spikes then you can be sure that there is an outside factor. leaky gut certainly applies to celiac sprue and many allergies. The autism link is possible. the Autism numbers spike directly correlates to the increase in vaccination programs of all types so that is more likely. Despite the hype, Genetics play a very small role in disease and health. Current estimates put it in the 10% range. If grandpa died of a heart attack you may want to be more vigilant than he was but it certainly doesn't mean you will die from one. The correlation there is more likely due to similar eating and living habits in family groups. A good book on the subject would be "epigenetics" by Bruce Lipton your genes actually turn on and off in response to your environment.

hohum any one anyone beuller:confused: