At what point would you break the law?

B

bushidomosquito

New member
There has been much talk lately of gun banning looming in the near future. I'd like to know how far some of you would let it go before you decided you would no longer comply either because you felt the enactors of such laws were enemies of the state or because you felt such laws interfered with you ability to protect yourself. I'm looking for serious discussion on which items you would keep or even hide if they were made illegal overnight. It's really a tough call to decide what's worth keeping but I believe that when you create a law against a object that many own or an activity that many persue, you are creating criminals. For instance, I have about $100 worth of high cap Glock magazines and if I woke up one day and found they were banned, they would go right into a location where no one would find them until it was safe to own them again. If, on the other hand, the Glock itself was outlawed because of some arbitrary condition it met, it would continue to stay in my possession and would never be registered should that requirement be set forth. The pointless flash suppressor for my 10-22 could go right into the trash and I could care less. Outlaw my ammo? No dice, I'm keeping it. Only currently legal items would leave the house with me, the rest would be cleverly hidden away.

Those that feel the need to inform me that it's stupid to state your intention to break theoretical laws online can voice your opinion and CYA by simply not replying. I want to get a good idea of how many gun owners will just roll over for pointless laws and to what extent.
 
Oh, the keyboard commandos are going to love this one! Come on guys sound off!

I have noticed there is an inverse correlation between the eagerness to start the 2nd Revolutionary War and the number of letters written to Congress .
 
It's hard to say before it happened but in my mind it would be foolish to state your willingness to disobey the law publicly.
 
Thanks Unregistered, nothing like trying to start a real discussion on an important subject only to have it crapped on by your first reply.

Yes everyone, let's all write letters to congress, get out and vote and join the NRA. :rolleyes: Then maybe we can talk about what to do if that doesn't work.
 
Most of mine were FTF purchases, gifts, or have been in the family too long to have any record of purchase. The rest, well, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

*Shrug* What more is there to talk about? I'm 4 hours drive-time from ANY city. 8 hours is a long way to drive just to ask me about a couple serial numbers.
 
I'm going to ask the Rev. Al "the gunowner's pal" Sharpton to BLESS any firearms I happen to own when and if such laws are passed. That should make everything I have legal again in spite of any laws.

And if it doesn't, there's always the Rev. Jackson!!

What politician or legal eagle would want to go against the blessings of these two fine gentleman?

Where there's a will (and a blessing or two) there's a way! :D
 
I think it's a really serious topic to give some thought to, and a real stupid one (no offense intended) to discuss on a public forum.
 
Right now hr 1022 (awb2) is languishing. However, assuming a demo. president is elected in Nov 08, and will be inaugurated about this time next year, it's within the realm of possibility that gun bans could be resurrected; perhaps in the wake of a high-profile shooting (typical reason in the past). :(

Its really a shame that discussion of this topic can't progress beyond cheap shots and boating accident jokes. A small suggestion? Phrase your commentary in the hypothetical third person.

OK.

Strength in unity:

First, we in the gun community should stick together. Can it somehow be reinforced that breaking a bad law is not a social stigma? Often, we read articles of folks getting hammered with a BS gun-related charge, and the discussion inevitably includes the words: "moron", "no sympathy", "hope they throw away the key", etc. I've never understood why folks enjoy piling on, when a productive citizen gets destroyed by a bogus prosecution (it benefits no one!) Maybe its human nature, but hopefully more people will think twice, as the laws change to snare more innocent people.

Imagine if the social stigma were truly removed, and it became a badge of honor to have been prosecuted for non-compliance with awb2!

One step in the creation of a federal law is a cost-analysis by OMB. Let's say awb2 is enacted as a pilot program, and achieves a 95% non compliance rate. :eek: Statistics would show it costs the government say, $300 per gun to collect banned weapons. Multiply that by 100 million guns, now there's is a statistic that NRA could certainly run with! Note (key point) this is totally peaceful, civil disobedience. The objective is to drive the cost of enforcement up so dramatically, that the entire concept becomes unworkable.

We could streamline support for legal defense in civil prosecution of awb2 violators. Perhaps the biggest hangup in challenging a bad law, is that the cost of legal counsel is prohibitive. Suppose a membership group like NRA-ILA were created, dues-paying members who followed the proscribed steps in challenging the law; and were prosecuted, would automatically get free legal counsel. A template could be established, wherein a single trial victory (civil or criminal/jury) could set a precedent for a whole class of defendants. And once again, the secondary goal would be to drive up the cost of enforcement to make the whole process unworkable.

I'm sure there are other ideas out there...anyone?
 
Sorry, didnt mean to crap on your post. Its just that the internet forums are full of people ready to rebel, but unwilling to make an attempt to change things with something as simple as writing a letter.

I don't think any response you get here from anyone is realistic. No one knows what the conditions would be that would require them to do that.

Some will say if guns are banned, they will give the ATF (or whoever) their guns bullets first. Thats mostly internet dick waving though. When 50 agents in body armor and tanks are outside your door, and your wife and kids are in bed asleep, most people are probably not going to chose that moment to make a stand and go down in flames.
 
Honestly, I don't know what I'll do. Like most guys, I'm concerned about being elderly, and losing all of my rights. Overall, I believe I am a law abiding citizen in this half of my life.

Having said that, if I was caught by a highway trooper for every offense, I could lose all of my points and be assessed fines in the thousands of dollars in one weekend on my bike.

Clearly, there are laws I do not respect.
 
Unregistered, any comments on post #9?

To get back to the cost/benefit approach: Let's say we've arrived at the morning when 50 ATF agents and a tank are deployed to collect your guns. How much does that cost? How much administrative expense would have already been expended prior to this action? If the gun owner had top-notch legal representation from day one, this scenario is highly unlikely, anyway.

Let's talk about the makeup of the gun owning community. A good cross-section of folks in both the public and private sector. We always hear about the majority of pro-2a leos. Could we capitalize on our friends within the law-enforcement and public sector to help minimize the impact of awb2 enforcement?

Suppose just one person within local law enforcement feels strongly that awb2 is unjust. Rather than turning in his badge, he secretly tips off the gun community about impending raids. That morning, you describe, when 50 BATFU's and the tank descend on Joe gun owner; it ends up not in flames, but with the embarrassed ATF commander holding a single rusty pellet gun (because we knew it was coming). Our friends in the local media put his picture on page one, along with the $80,000 price tag which results in no prosecutable offense.

Anyone recall the scene in the movie "Untouchables" where, Eliot Ness raids a warehouse, only to be photographed holding a paper umbrella? These are the elements of a resistance, employed for example during alchohol prohibition, that could be applied in the face of publicly unpopular gun ban.

No shots fired, no d*** waving.
 
Rather than studying laws on a daily basis, I've always thought it best to do what's right, rational and logical, while never endangering others. If only everyone could work this way, we wouldn't even need laws. Criminals don't follow laws.
I don't agree with alot of traffic laws, if it's dangerous to go over the speed limit, why do our cars go 120mph? For revenue !!
As far as guns, for me, they've never been a problem before, why should a new law make me think they're now a threat or now dangerous to the public?? I can't agree with that. Certain candidates right now believe all semi autos should be banned, noone should have a carry permit and anything at or over 50cal, inclucing muzzeloaders should be banned!! These are illogical laws!
Having said that, I'd say I'm already at that point where I disagree with current laws. I don't think I'm breaking any yet, but that's not my choice, that's the choice of the lawmakers.
To me, it's similar to all these costly, ineffective drug laws. Car chases, murders, shootings, drug violence, only occur because drugs are illegal. The war on drugs costs billions each year and has done no good. Drug dealers would be out of business if drugs were legal and controlled like alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol is far worse than most drugs, yet it's sold by the states!
People should make their own choices and be accountable for the actions they take and the consequences of those choices. We'd have far less crimes and murders if drug laws were changed.
We'd have far less murders and mass murders if more people took the 2nd amendment seriously!


RON PAUL 2008 !!!!!!
 
I wouldn't advocate anyone break the law.

But, hypothetically, I'd hope folks would do what I've heard about from CA residents. When the CA assault weapons registration and ban took effect, about 90% of assault weapons did not comply. That left somewhere between 700,000 and 900,000 of these tools of freedom in the hands of patriotic Americans. Further, since the CA AWB didn't forbid the sales of receivers for various models of these tools, a rather brisk sale of parts kits, also fully legal, into CA began. No one knows how many of these were assembled into functional firearms, but estimates are in the 7 figure range.

That's just in one state.

There are 100 million gun owners that possess somewhere between 500 million and 700 million firearms in America. The BATFAE figures are bunk and have been for years.

Confiscation of firearms isn't possible under any known methodology, so that's unlikely.

The knowledge of firearms is ubiquitous, so if new firearms were somehow prohibited, basement manufacture would begin, again, overnight. A submachine gun is easier to make than the average medium quality semi-automatic pistol. Anyone possessing a sheet metal brake, drill press or vertical mill, and access to an auto junk yard can produce dozens of these weapons a week should a market arise.

No local, state, or the US government can stop access to firearms in America.

We do, however, need to make any politician who speaks of a ban or tries to enable a ban pay for that error with the end of his/her political career if at all possible.
 
zxcvbob said:
I think it's a really serious topic to give some thought to, and a real stupid one (no offense intended) to discuss on a public forum.
Click to expand...

I politely disagree. We are debating what we might do.

I'm not a gambler, I just don't see the fun or the waste of money. However, if you dealt me a Royal Flush, I think I might toss a few hundred bucks into the pot.

I just had new performance cams installed in my bike. I might drive it harder once or twice. :D

How I can accurately predict what I might do under Queen Hillary a decade from now in a police state? Will I fight in the trenches, or go quietly into a concentration camp? I don't know. At that time I'll be 68. I know crusty old bikers at that age who are still dangerous--and we all know guys that age in nursing homes who have given up.

In the final analysis, this is a scenario thread. It's also a fun topic for debate.
 
I think it's a really serious topic to give some thought to, and a real stupid one (no offense intended) to discuss on a public forum.
Click to expand...

+1 too.

Massive confiscations probably won't happen. But let's suppose that somehow Congress figures out a way to ban Class III firearms and semi-automatic rifles that are copies of military firearms along with semi-auto handguns and get it enacted into law. Now what?

Most likely outcome: BATFE bureaucrats will attempt to identify several long-term firearms collector who meets the following criteria;
- Is over 55 years of age
- Has at least one Class III firearm
- Has registered several military clones (AR's, AK's, M1A's)
- Has multiple semi-auto handguns
- Has a steady job/income or owns his own business
They'll find someone like this to raid as an example of "what's coming". The raid will happen while he's at work where he'll be arrested and brought to the shambles of his house. News media will be shown that he had "dozens" of (now) illegal weapons and told that he presented a danger to the community. Ultimately, to defend himself he'll lose his job or business, house and probably be divorced by his wife.

They'll do one or two raids early on, then one raid every 2-3 months to reinforce the idea to people that they are coming to confiscate your guns. That'll make wives, girlfriends and children nervous and they'll urge getting rid of the guns. Or spill to a "friend" that they wish Bob would dump it in a lake.

In the meantime, that single AR-15 in the back of your safe will be ignored. It's more likely you will get caught out if you use it somewhere. If you're burlarized and it shows up on the street, they'll assure a jury that it came from you, you failed to report it, failed to turn it in, etc.
 
Any of you Clarence Darrows ever heard of ex post facto???:) Why do you suppose there's been grandfathering in every piece of gun control legislation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top