Let's say...

[jnojr]

...for the purposes of argument that people in San Bernardino County decide that they don't really want to be Californians any more, and that they would like to be annexed by Nevada. They hold a referendum, and the voters agree.

Obviously, CA wouldn't be too thrilled. What are the legal issues at stake here? Does California "own" the land?

How about a property owner who is right on the NV county line? Any possible way he could "secede" from CA and become a Nevadan?

[rssslvr]

Oh I wish SB county would do that

[SemiAutoSam]

That would be interesting but unless all the land of that county was privately held and there were no federal lands I doubt it would fly.

Isn't it ridiculous that California Ceded its lands to the federal government.

Texas is the only state that did not do this.

[Fate]

Texas is also the only state that can LEGALLY secede from the union.

[Sutcliffe]

Some northern counties and a few in southern Oregon have been wanted to seceed for about the last three generations. Driving up I-5 you can still see signs calling for an independant state free from california rule. I think it's more a drinking or social club than anything else. I've been seeing the signs and billboards for years.

[tiki]

Some northern counties and a few in southern Oregon have been wanted to seceed for about the last three generations. Driving up I-5 you can still see signs calling for an independant state free from california rule. I think it's more a drinking or social club than anything else. I've been seeing the signs and billboards for years.


I think they tried that in Vermont or somewhere over there about 10 years or so ago.

[Paladin]

I think they tried that in Vermont or somewhere over there about 10 years or so ago.
Actually it was going on just last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secession_movement

As for an individual landowner whose property abuts the Nevada border . . . don't you wish! Read the 2nd to last paragraph of the above linked article. Bottom line: passing a RKBA initiative amendment to the CA state constitution would be a cake-walk compared to secession.

Oh well, time to get back to the "unglamorous" work Mike Haas kindly throws our way. Being a grunt ain't full of glory, but it's the job that needs to be done. "March on, my fellow soldiers. March on."

[sthornwall]

Not to get too off subject but I would like to see northern California become a separate state. Make California like the Carolinas, have a north and south. The sad thing is all the ridiculous gun laws in CA are because of places like Los Angeles and Oakland hence it's liberal base along with San Francisco. Everything from Lake Tahoe and above should be it's own state. I bet if this did happen the state of "North California" would be a red/pro-gun one. More than likley would never happen but I am sure those who live up there would love it. Just a thought.

[anotherone]

Isn't it ridiculous that California Ceded its lands to the federal government.

Actually it's WONDERFUL :D! I've got more rights on Federal BLM land than I do on land owned by the state. If the federal governement wasn't in charge of many of the wildlife refuges I have no doubt they would have built tract homes on/near them and then closed them when the new home owners got upset at the gunfire. Be thankful there are little sections of free america within this state.

[Ryan HBC]

How about if we take the opposite approach, and vote a county out? Now that sounds interesting.

[grammaton76]

If we just cut off the coast, we are already a red state by geography. I't just the population centers are on the coast, but they aren't having kids according to the studies, so we'll outnumber them by 2020.


They aren't having kids, they're just importing immigrants to do that for them.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Everything from Lake Tahoe and above should be it's own state. I bet if this did happen the state of "North California" would be a red/pro-gun one. More than likley would never happen but I am sure those who live up there would love it. Just a thought.
I've read that most polls or political statistics point to a three way split working better. I don't remember now what those three are, but a n/s split would be hopeless. You want a coastal and mountain split. Presumably the valley goes with the mountains, politically. Maybe the north above Sacto goes separate from everything else.

[dw1784]

San Bernardino is the conduit for electricity, gas/oil and water to and from socal. Without the Indians(and their $$) I doubt it can be done without a citzen's revolt by force. I imagine at some point in time, when Indian casinos has enough clout in state and fed gov't($$), it prob can be done, especially since much of SB and Riv Cty are Indian land. Other than that, you can't fight utility companies. If ONE oil company's willing to spend 60mil on a state proposition, I'm sure collectively they're willing to spend Bil to defeat secession.

[sthornwall]

I've read that most polls or political statistics point to a three way split working better. I don't remember now what those three are, but a n/s split would be hopeless. You want a coastal and mountain split. Presumably the valley goes with the mountains, politically. Maybe the north above Sacto goes separate from everything else.

I guess you're right. We should give the Liberal-Anti's their own hippie paradise off the coast of CA. (no offense to gun loving hippies):D

2227

[chiefcrash]

Texas is also the only state that can LEGALLY secede from the union.

how do you figure that? because texas was it's own country at one point?

California was it's own country for about a month...

[jnojr]

http://www.freestateproject.org/

New Hampshire was a bad choice... it's being inundated by liberals from Massachussetts who want to get away from the crime and grime they've created there. It won't be long before NH is another Socialist state.

Try Free State Wyoming (http://www.freestatewyoming.org/) instead...

[jnojr]

That would be interesting but unless all the land of that county was privately held and there were no federal lands I doubt it would fly.


If the land in CA is federal, wouldn't that make it easier? Why should the Feds care which state their land is a prt of?

[SemiAutoSam]

Most likely because since Texas did not cede any of its land to the federal government when it became a state it can do what ever it wants with the LAND that is TEXAS.



how do you figure that? because Texas was it's own country at one point?

California was it's own country for about a month...


The feds IMHO Feel as they own all of the ceded parts of California and therefore its not owned any longer by those that occupy it.
The way land changed hands has changed over the last 100 or so years I suppose if we all owned our lands by patent it might be a different story. But since most dont hold the patent on their land Myself excluded from that group they don't actually hold clear TITLE to the land they think they own. They only have Color of title to said land.



If the land in CA is federal, wouldn't that make it easier? Why should the Feds care which state their land is a prt of?

[chiefcrash]

Most likely because since Texas did not cede any of its land to the federal government when it became a state it can do what ever it wants with the LAND that is TEXAS.

I know that there's BLM land in Texas, and BLM land belongs to the Federal government (US department of the Interior), so that theory doesn't really hold up.

regardless of that though, does that mean any state can secede as long as it leaves the little patches of federal land outside it's borders? what's to stop individual cities from seceding from their state AND the US?

in the aftermath of the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment, which included a definition of national citizenship, something conspicuously absent from the original. (Previously, citizenship had been defined exclusively by the states.)

[E Pluribus Unum]

how do you figure that? because texas was it's own country at one point?

California was it's own country for about a month...


Because Texas was added to the union by a treaty. A vote of the Texas legislature can disolve the treaty.

Remember when the southern states tried to suceede? Union army invaded and we had the civil war. It is illegal to sucede from the union with the exceoption of Texas.

[midnitereaper]

uhm can we take a look back at history for a bit? Seperation will solve nothing nor will voting into another state. As I am sure you may have heard before like my dad told me once. Running away from your problems will solve nothing. If you want to keep your gun rights then you need to fight for them here. If we loose our rights in this state then it is only a matter of time before the other states will loose theirs. Just look at the smoking ban. Started here and spread through the nation, including now Nevada. Hell Ohio now has it amended into their constitution. Do you really think the gun laws made in this state will stay isolated here forever?

[jnojr]

Remember when the southern states tried to suceede? Union army invaded and we had the civil war. It is illegal to sucede from the union with the exceoption of Texas.

How could it possibly be illegal to secede from the US when the US was formed by seceding from the Commonwealth?

The only reason secesion is "illegal" is because the North won. If Pickett had taken Cemetary Ridge, it's quite likely the world would be a very, very different place today.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

[E Pluribus Unum]

How could it possibly be illegal to secede from the US when the US was formed by seceding from the Commonwealth?

The only reason secesion is "illegal" is because the North won. If Pickett had taken Cemetary Ridge, it's quite likely the world would be a very, very different place today.

That is like saying "The only reason you have a 2nd amendment right is because we won the revolution". It really does not matter what would be legal had the south won. The fact is they did not and therefore it is illegal.

Had the South won, the world would be much different; we there would be three countries on this continent.

[chiefcrash]

Because Texas was added to the union by a treaty. A vote of the Texas legislature can disolve the treaty.

Remember when the southern states tried to suceede? Union army invaded and we had the civil war. It is illegal to sucede from the union with the exceoption of Texas.


The treaty was between the Lone Star Republic (which was it's own country) and the United States. *maybe* it could be dissolved by the Lone Star Republic, but that government no longer exsists (and i doubt the US Government is going to dissolve the treaty). The Texas state government is not the government that signed the treaty

[Paratus et Vigilans]

Sam, you DO come up with the most intriguing issues!

Actually, I don't think Texas is situated any differently than any of the other 50 states when it comes to the issue of leaving "The United States of America." As I understand it, when the South attempted to leave the Union, those states acted unilaterally. If the balance of the states in the Union consented, I believe it would have been entirely "legal." Since there is a set process for joining the Union which involves ratification by "the several states" of a new state joining the Union, there is no reason, legally speaking, why the process couldn't be done in reverse. The question is about getting everyone else's permission to leave the party! :)

So, are you saying that Texas came into the Union by a treaty between the USA and the Republic of Texas? Did it not get its joining ratified by Congress the way that Alaska and Hawaii came in? If it did, would that ratification not serve to nullify the effect of the treaty? Does any treaty actually permit unilateral withdrawal from it? I don't have any of these answers, just questions!

Hmmmmm. Interesting! :confused:

[jnojr]

The treaty was between the Lone Star Republic (which was it's own country) and the United States. *maybe* it could be dissolved by the Lone Star Republic, but that government no longer exsists (and i doubt the US Government is going to dissolve the treaty). The Texas state government is not the government that signed the treaty

Again, I refer back to No Treason... how can a piece of paper, signed by people long-dead, bind me to a government I do not want? How can Texas be forever bound to the US because of the actions of a government that, like you pointed out, doesn't exist any more?

It comes down to force. I, or a county, or a state, can declare ourselves free of the Federal or state government. They will send guys with guns. We can remain free so long as we can hold off the guys with guns. If they prevail, then suddenly we go from free men to prisoners... not because their cause is "right" or "just", but because they were able to employ more force.

[jnojr]

As I understand it, when the South attempted to leave the Union, those states acted unilaterally. If the balance of the states in the Union consented, I believe it would have been entirely "legal."

So the US is an illegal country because our departure from Great Britain was not consented to by the Crown? If that's so, then how could it possibly be "illegal" for any entity to seceded from that "illegal" state?

[SemiAutoSam]

Thanks I think..............I had a sleepless night last night so i'm not really up to debating this or any other issue but when I'm feeling better I will attempt to bring interesting and enlightening information.



Sam, you DO come up with the most intriguing issues!



Hmmmmm. Interesting! :confused:

[Paratus et Vigilans]

So the US is an illegal country because our departure from Great Britain was not consented to by the Crown? If that's so, then how could it possibly be "illegal" for any entity to seceded from that "illegal" state?

As far as British law was concerned at the time, absolutely! We were treasonous rebels taking arms against the Crown! However, when we won the Revolutionary War, I believe the new USA, in the form of the Continental Congress, signed a treaty with Great Britain wherein the USA was recognized as an independent nation no longer under the dominion of George III. They had no choice but to treat with us and recognize us as an independent nation then, since they were unable to quash the rebellion by force of arms. Then in 1789 with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, our forebears all agreed to live under the Federal government we now have. So, as a nation we're "legal" as far as that goes, though the term "legal" sort of loses its meaning in the context of international relations. There is no such thing as a true "international law." Relations between soverign nations are governed by treaties, which are akin to contracts, and as far as "legal enforcement" of treaties goes, well, that's kind of an iffy proposition at best. That's where diplomacy and politics come in and, as we all know thanks to Von Clausewitz, war, which he called "the continuation of politics by other means."

[chiefcrash]

It comes down to force. I, or a county, or a state, can declare ourselves free of the Federal or state government. They will send guys with guns. We can remain free so long as we can hold off the guys with guns.

exactly. any state can secede from the union. they just need to be able to withstand attempts to prevent that withdrawl...

the point that i'm trying to make is that Texas is in no special condition that allows them to bow out without the Federal government pulling them back in (by force, if needed)

[mikehaas]

...Oh well, time to get back to the "unglamorous" work Mike Haas kindly throws our way.
And your drab taskmaster reminds you that we are currently fighting two City of Sacramento anti-gun ordinances (ane affecting dealers, the other everyone)...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=saclosstheft.1&year=2006
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=sacammosales.1&year=2006
...as well as trying to prevent environmentalists from gaining more control at the Dept. of Fish & Game...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=leadammoban.1&year=2006
...In between seceding counties, those of us who still live here would appreciate a ONE-CLICK or 2 (or 5) about these issues at...
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#oneclick
(The ONECLICKs were fast & furious for a couple days, but are now but a trickle. BTW, you don't have to live in Sacramento to be affected by this or just to have an opinion. Anyone seen any opinions running around here?)

Being a grunt ain't full of glory, but it's the job that needs to be done. "March on, my fellow soldiers. March on."
Right behind ya. (trudge, trudge, trudge)

Ok, carry on. :-)

Mike