"In a joint resolution, the Montana politicians argue that when Washington approved the state constitution, including a clause granting 'any person' the right to bear arms, upon the Treasure State’s entry into the Union in 1889, the federal government recognized that clause as consistent with the Second Amendment."
Montana argues that if the Supreme Court decides in D.C. vs. Heller that the right is a collective one, it would breach the Constitutional compact made with Montana on its admission.
“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.”That remedy for a Constitution is known as secession.
Secession, while not explicitly authorized by the Constituion was recognized as a legal right by the Federal Government early in the Lincoln Presidency. This explains why Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason, and why the Congress during Reconstruction after the Civil War repeatedly changed its policy on readmission of the seceded States.
The idea is getting less loony all the time. Thanks to Rebellion for bringing this to my attention.
Additional information on Montana (June 16).