Federal Court Upholds Assault Weapons Ban.

[Tom Servo]

In my eyes they are 100% justified. To follow such a unjust law is no different than to follow a unlawful order.

Except that refusing to follow the law can result in a felony conviction. Let's be careful with the rhetoric.

 

[44 AMP]

To follow such a unjust law is no different than to follow a unlawful order.

Not quite. Unjust and unlawful are two different things.

It is quite true that one has no moral or legal duty to obey an illegal law.

HOWEVER, UNTIL a law is declared illegal (unconstitutional) by the Supreme Court, you do. And if you don't, your "civil disobedience" is punishable under the law.

WHEN the law is repealed, so is the punishment, and while you may have grounds then for an unlawful imprisonment claim, until then, you don't.

 

[raimius]

I think some people tend to forget that MLK and Gandhi both spent time behind bars because of their beliefs.

"Civil disobedience" may or may not work, but violating the law in a non-violent way will still bring legal penalties.

 

[44 AMP]

but violating the law in a non-violent way will still bring legal penalties.

This is the largest stumbling block facing gun owners who would protest.

Breaking the law in acts of civil disobedience works to get attention, and (hopefully) support to change things. But it works best when you are trying to get something you don't already have. You don't have it, therefore, you cannot lose it.

Gun owners, on the other hand are on just the opposite side of the coin. We are trying NOT to lose what we already have, and breaking the law can lose us our goal, as individuals, directly (lose gun rights due to a conviction), and generally doesn't help our cause as a group.