Ignoring Un-Constitutional Gun Laws

P

Paul Revere

New member
After replying to another post about "another revolution" herein, I mentioned the act of civil disobedience as it pertains to un-Constitutional gun laws. It got me thinking about how many of you folks would (or do) actually ignore these laws.

The way I see it, is like this... if gun owners stood united and literally turned their backs to these un-Constitutional laws, wouldn't we in effect be stating that we support the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and will not stand for any infringements thereof?

Being a law abiding citizen really means that one shall not violate the ten commandments after all, doesn't it? If we live our lives to the letter of each and every regulation, stipulation, and law that somehow got onto the books albeit un-Constitutionally, are we really living our own lives? Are we free then? Are we not mere subjects at that point?

Aren't these laws intended to protect all of us by preventing the law breakers from obtaining guns anyway? We all know that criminals don't abide by these laws. So what good are they if we are the only ones obeying them?

Questions, questions...any answers?
 
I'm for a Supreme Court Ruling stating once and for all whether the 2nd is an individual right or not up or down.

While civil disobedience sounds good, being that we ARE gunowners will only allow us to be painted as militant nuts by the Leftist media. This will justify a forceful putdown of our protests because of the simple fact that we are armed.

As much as I can't stand the ACLU, their tactics were excellent. They continuously mounted court challenges on constitutional grounds and won the bulk of their cases while the rest of the country was asleep.

It's about time we learned from that and used the same tactics.
 
Use their tactics, hell! Use THEM! Does anyone *ever* get the ACLU to work for our civil liberties? We need help! If the ACLU only works as "devil's advocate," haven't they demonized us enough to be our advocates, too?

We need a suit against... oh, say, the Treasury Dept, for starters.

------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?
 
Paul,

I practice CD on a daily basis. If a law violates my rights, I ignore it as best I can.

For example, I believe that NICS is an infringement of RKBA. However, no gun dealer I know will sell a gun if NICS is down, even though it's legal to do so. So, I'm stuck there.

Since this isn't what I'd call a secure medium, and since the Fifth still (for today, at least) protects me from self-incrimination, I won't go into detail about my other exploits. :)

------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.
 
I can't help it but my satyrical side is coming out again........

Did you know that Paul Revere was captured and that it was actually Samual Dawes that actually warned of the Redcoats coming?

Just hope that you don't get captured. ;)

------------------
"God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." --Daniel Webster
 
I've been thinking about CD, too. I wonder what would happen if, say, 10% of all the gunowners in the country decided that tomorrow, they were going to openly wear a pistol, regardless of law. Chaos. The police would be too busy to do anything at all. Where would they put them all? How many jails have facilities for 20 or 30 thousand prisoners at once? They'd just have to throw up their hands and call it a day. And think what would happen the next day...30% show up; and the next day, 70%.....jeez, the entire gov't would just s**t a brick...especially when it was noted that there was no violence, just people peacefully carrying in violation of the law. The press and the anti's would go into total meltdown and become catatonic. Ah, sweet bliss....

Well, I can dream, can't I?

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
The Shottist's Center forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
The ACLU's position is that the 2nd is not an individual right. There's definitely something wrong with the top leadership in ACLU....
 
Im for that supreme ct decision as well, and would like to see several challenges at the local level.....all it takes is money.......fubsy.
 
I to believe that a SC case is the way to go... but how are we going to get one there? Lets face reality, if one is charged with a crime, they are provided free legal council if they can not afford it themselves. All judges are not alike. Take Cummings for example compared to the 9th circuit. So it comes down to the numbers game... sooner or later if there are so many cases tried... someone is going to make it to the SC.

Most of the bull we are going through is due to the lack of the SC for taking on the 2nd. If enough law abiding citizens are arrested for non-violent crimes... where their only crime is say purchasing or selling a gun between private citizens or some such other harmless violation... sooner or later others will get the idea... So how is this going to happen? I can tell you it's not if we all obey each and every law they pass.

Take me for example... If I was arrested for a non-violent crime, it would wake a lot of people up. All my friends, co-workers, etc. would not understand why. They know me and know that I would not hurt fly... so why would I be arrested?

So in answer to your question.. I ignor those laws that I know are unconstitutional.

Richard
 
It's my understanding that part of the reason we haven't had any substantive rulings on the 2nd amendment is that the SC has steadfastly refused to hear cases involving it. The Court can decide what cases it hears and if they refuse to hear a case, there is no recourse.
 
The problem with ignoring the gun laws as a group is that the D.A.s and Federal prosecutors won't prosecute as a group. We're treated as a group of individuals.

------------------
I offer neither pay nor quarters nor provisions; I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches, battles and death. Let him who loves his country in his heart, and not his lips only, follow me.
-Giuseppe Garabaldi
 
I'm sure that the case from the 2nd District of North Texas will make it. The judge inthat case ruled the gun ownership was an individual right and overturned all of the gunlaws in his district. The case hinged around a guy who had a protective order against him BUT NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS.

There is also a judge in a small town in Alabama that has ruled all gun laws in his jurisdiction unconstitutional.

------------------
"God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." --Daniel Webster
 
You all seem to be on the right track in your replies. But let's take this a step further.

Firstly, forget about waiting for a Supreme Court (SC) decision, because what could indeed happen in time is this...once there are enough liberal judges appointed to the court (a short term possibility considering the age of some SC judges), the idea of depending on the SC decision regarding the 2nd Amendment could very well backfire on us. The fact that the SC has not heard any 2nd Amendment cases should prove in and of itself that the 2nd is clear enough as written. There is far too much back-up documentation proving it as an individual right from our founding father's Federalist papers. So let's move away from the confusing misinterpretations offered by those who want to remove that freedom irregardless. The 2nd is CLEAR!

Let's look at the violations of the 2nd Amendment that are in the form of various Gun Control Acts, regulations, laws, bills, etc. Take the example given regarding NICS. A gun CAN be purchased "legally" WITHOUT the FFL dealer involved, through private transactions. We all know that the NICS and the dreaded yellow ATF form are nothing but registration devices (which are already illegal) anyway, so why buy that way?. We also know that our U.S. Attorney General (Clinton appointee, Janet Reno) hasn't prosecuted any felons for being rejected by NICS, so why are WE so concerned about buying through it?. The fact that we can still conduct private transactions is the very reason why the leftists see it as a "loophole" to be closed. SO buy PRIVATE!!

Let's look at some critical language in the 2nd. Concentrating on "keep and bear", ..."keep" is defined in the dictionary as, "to retain possession of", and "bear" is defined as, "to carry on one's person". This definition is exactly what was meant by our Founding Fathers. An armed citizen, is a free citizen. So if we take 45K's statement regarding all of us "peacefully" carrying a firearm (not out in the open, but concealed) seriously, what harm could that have? Unless you've conducted yourself in a manner that an LEO would deem necessary to search your person (a violation of your 4th Amendment rights without reasonable cause), why wouldn't this idea be plausible? So why don't we all carry irregardless of the un-Constitutional laws that alledgedly forbid it? We have a right that says we are guaranteed to "retain possession of a firearm and carry it on one's person", so why aren't we doing it?

A guy I know in Texas was all hyped about being "first in line" to get a CCW permit when they were first available. I asked him just recently if he has a CCW and he said, "NO". When asked why, he explained that getting caught with a gun without a CCW was akin to a $200 fine. He's never had a single problem without the CCW. BTW he is a squeeky clean law abiding citizen too.

Seriously, we all know people that carry without "proper" permits. And none that I know have EVER been stopped, searched, busted, or committed any criminal act with their firearm.

The simple reason we have had so many un-Constitutional laws forced down our throats is because we stand around and do NOTHING about stopping them! Compromising on these violations to our rights by our supposedly "pro-gun" lobbying groups hasn't gotten us any closer to REPEALING any gun law! If we keep bending over to these blatant violations of our great Constitutional freedoms, sooner or later they're going to slip us the high hard one. And we will be scratching our heads asking, "Geez, how'd that happen?"

So instead of sitting around waiting for the midnight knock on the door, why don't we come to together on this issue? If we continue to allow these violations to erode any freedoms we have left, soon we will have none.
 
With two District court decisions now at total odds with each other(California and Texas), This issue may be going to the Supreme Court sooner than you think.

Check out the "Urgent Very Bad News" post in legal&political forum.

[This message has been edited by Contender (edited August 05, 1999).]
 
It is a citizens duty (not right but DUTY) to overturn or overthrow unconstitutional State or Federal laws. By vote or whatever means needed.
 
So what if the SC did rule in our favor on the 2nd Amendment? Do any of us think that would really change anything? Would it change any of the anti's minds? No. Clinton and his ilk would just say "The SC has made a mistake, and we'll find a way around their ruling" just like they've done when the SC has ruled against one of their laws in the past.

I'm not convinced a SC ruling in our favor would change much.

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited August 05, 1999).]
 
deanf,

You're right about the Executive Branch ignoring the Judicial (except in their own favor); hell, making and interpreting law is what Billy Jeff is all about.

But... an "individual right" ruling by the Supremes may just cause some people to realize that we've been speaking TRVTH all along. No, we won't convince everyone, but at this point, we need all the allies we can find. Who knows, maybe the fence-sitters will fall off on our side.

------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited August 05, 1999).]
 
I'm with you Coinneach, If the Supreme Court affirmed an individuals right to keep and bear arms, it would set legal precedence. That is very important. We would then have legal backing based on this ruling whenever a case was brought before a judge. Having the highest court in the land rule in our favor will become the new guiding principle of law in this area. We could then challenge any law on constitutional grounds. This is something very different from working at it piece-meal. It would also lend legitimacy to our claim of RKBA.

CD is fine. It's what was done in the 60's to good effect but, ultimately laws have to be changed to regain rights. This is where this ruling would come in.

The Texas case is being appealed, which was expected, however,if the ruling stands,this paves the way to the SC.

Lastly, If the SC ruled in our favor, I couldn't care less what the anti's thought. They would have to be the ones that had to live with and choke on it for a change. The only thing they could do is change the Constitution. Good Luck, you see how many times it's been changed recently?

[This message has been edited by Contender (edited August 05, 1999).]
 
The case will almost assuredly go to the Supreme Court (if the Court wants to hear it). It still has to go through the Federal Court of Appeals before it reaches the Court though.

------------------
"God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it." --Daniel Webster
 
I think it automatically has to go to the SC because two opposing Federal rulings can not stand on the same issue. The SC has to clarify and settle it.

This is a bit different from an individual bringing a case up there hoping to be heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top