Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

According to ABC News (Feb.
25, 2009
"The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the
assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush
administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"`As President
Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a
few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and
among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale
of assault weapons,` Holder told reporters."

Holder also said that

President Obama would seek
to make the assault
weapons ban permanent, close the
"gun show
and ban

At this point, I believe it is
incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack
Obama have made a career out of doing everything in
their power to strip the American people of their right
to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the
abovementioned "few gun-related changes," there is the potential for widespread
assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called
"assault weapons" ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus
spending bills—and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic
rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an
"assault weapon."
By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of
fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle—in
any configuration—is functionally identical to any
semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters
commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of
hunting, both predator and big game. The term
"assault weapon"
is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it
easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and
public officials into passing a ban against
semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe
that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing
semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would
not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun
control zealots during the Clinton years railing against
bolt-action rifles, calling them
rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it
be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a
similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is
not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the
infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear
arms—any arms.

Of course, the
"gun show
is nothing more than the prohibition
against private citizens selling and trading their own
personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and
Holders of this country that liberty is not a

In the beginning, the private sale
and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the
purpose for which gun shows were started. Today,
commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it
is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy
and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as
old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I
remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears &
Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning
bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any
bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not
capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four).
This is just another approach to the same goal: the
infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much

The Democrats went down this road
in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same
road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun
control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both
houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton
without a majority in either chamber. It was also an
aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to
lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill
Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the
underlying reality is that it is the individual States
that must ultimately be guardians of the Second
Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of
course). States must be willing to resist any and all
efforts by the central government to intrude upon their
independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was
not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve
after the federal government was created by the adoption
of the
Constitution in 1787
? Why? Because the States were
deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment.
Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior
in scope.

As James Madison said in the

Federalist Papers, No. 45,

"The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined.

 Those which are
to remain in the State governments are numerous and

Therefore, when the federal
government begins to intrude upon the rights and
liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the
States to resist. Obviously, the way the federal
government tries to keep States in subjection is through
bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars
unless States comply with their despotic machinations.
And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing
temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are
finally beginning to fight back.

According to

World Net Daily
"So far, eight
states have introduced resolutions declaring state
sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana,
Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and

"Analysts expect
that in addition, another 20 states may see similar
measures introduced this year, including Alaska,
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania."

Pertaining specifically to the
Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular,
seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the
recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of
Montana`s senators and representatives—along with its
Secretary of State— proposed a resolution stating
"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."

The Montana resolution recalls,
"When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part
of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a
provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to `any

The resolution continues,
"To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the
Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was
in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution
says, "There is
no question that the contract into which Montana entered
for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that
the people of Montana would benefit from an individual
and personal right to bear arms, protected from
governmental interference by both the federal and
Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the
parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating
sternly, "A
collective rights holding in Heller would not only open
the Pandora`s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it
would also poise Montana to claim

appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for
contract violation

In other words, representatives and
senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put
Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate
the infringement of its citizens` right to keep and bear
arms. I don`t think I`m reading anything into the
resolution by assuming that they were implying that they
would secede before they let the federal government
trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I`ve
just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing
to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State
legislative body in America that believes in the Second
Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama,
Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing
socialists know that they will not tolerate even one
more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear
arms—and that includes any so-called
"assault weapons" ban.

And let`s never forget that the
purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the
rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect
themselves—and their States—against the tyrannical
tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see
firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the
Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this
testimony given before Congress not long ago (here).

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the
pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola,
Florida. He hosts a

weekly radio show
. His
website is