A moral dilemma

[Telesway]

I saw a topic like this on some other board and thought about the subject quite a bit since:

Let's say you live in a country/state that allows concealed carry for civilians for self defense purposes and you do have a ccw license and carry a gun. Then changes are made and the government decides civilians aren't allowed to carry anymore, no concealed carry, no open carry, no carry of any kind, not even knives or mace etc.

What to do, then? First thing that comes to mind is to obey the law, afterall, that's what separates the good, law abiding citizens from the law breaking criminals. But here's the question:

Can laws become "too much" in so much that following them 100% becomes a nuisance, even something to which one wouldn't want to submit? Is there such a line the law makers could cross? Realistically speaking, I mean, nobody could follow a law that said everybody has to learn to levitate or to turn invisible.

Some "law abiding citizens" break the law as it is: they drive over the speed limit, I see this all the time: the limit might be 40 miles per hour and they drive 50mph. Some loiter: finished a can of coke? Toss it in the gutter. Some drive without the seatbelt on or talk on their cell phone while driving (without a hands free). Yet quite a few people still consider these individuals law abiding citizens. What if the 2nd amendment was ticked off, no more carry of any kind. What then?

Just a moral dilemma I've been twisting and turning in my head for a while and haven't really arrived at a satisfactory conclusion yet.

 

[Ivy Mike]

first you consult a lawyer
if possible, file suit
if that fails, start petitions to reintroduce CCW in your area

after that, I won't say anything because I would never advise anyone to break a law over the internet.

 

[Treo]

Discussing ways to break laws is against forum rules.

You exhaust every legal means at your disposal to get the laws changed. Starting W/ participating in the political process before things get to the point you describe

 

[evan price]

Break the law, or not.
Discussing breaking the law is verboten.
Sounds like you answered your own question.

Next thread...

 

[Telesway]

Forgot about that rule, my appologies.

 

[bdickens]

Use your own best judgment.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Doesn't sound to me like he's advocating breaking the law.

It sounds like to me he's asking a question that I think comes up a lot:

Why are guns so hated/feared/chastised in society?

You use your cell phone when you're not supposed to, you speed, you might park illegally, and no one blinks.

You carry a concealed weapon illegally and you're a monster.

It's a reasonable question. Why do people overreact so much when firearms are concerned? Because they are dangerous? Cars kill exponentially more people every year than guns do. Get a DWI even and many people think "well, that's sad". Heck, that's a serious crime and it still doesn't make headlines.

Have a handgun in your car illegally in some places, even if you didn't DO anything with it, and you're a page one cover story.

Probably not a good topic for legal, but it's an interesting question.

 

[Chisel Head]

...Let's say you live in a country/state that allows concealed carry for civilians for self defense purposes and you do have a ccw license and carry a gun. Then changes are made and the government decides civilians aren't allowed to carry anymore, no concealed carry, no open carry, no carry of any kind, not even knives or mace etc....What to do, then?

Either seek to restore that country to what it once was or try leaving it, if you can't organize reasonable support

First thing that comes to mind is to obey the law, afterall, that's what separates the good, law abiding citizens from the law breaking criminals...

There's nothing wrong with obeying the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both overrule any law created to undermine them

...But here's the question:
Can laws become "too much" in so much that following them 100% becomes a nuisance, even something to which one wouldn't want to submit? Is there such a line the law makers could cross?

They usually cross these lines because of letting themselves get bought and sold by lobby groups who represent special interests which aren't in the interest of ordinary citizens

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both overrule any law created to undermine them

Only if the judge agrees. If the judge finds the law constitutional, you'll be going to jail no matter what you think the Constitution says.

 

[kevindsingleton]

Some rights precede the law; any law.

If no other means restores your rights, then violent revolution might be in order.

It's worked, before, and our 2nd Amendment dictates that it's not off the table!

IBTL!

 

[Neo-Luddite]

From G-d (or nature if you prefer) comes rights which (our nation) has feebly and imperfectly ennumerated in a our Constitution.

Laws are made within in this framework. Laws are sometimes wrong--you may ignore an unjust law at legal peril to yourself, but I don't see how a moral problem is at play.

Most citizens, when they really consider things, recognize that just laws have in their basis a prohibition on one citizen impinging on the liberties and rights of another unjustly. When you can't find that reasoning in the law, it is likely an unjust law.

My carrying of a weapon doesn't impinge on anyone's rights unless I behave recklessly with it. My driving over the limit (usually) doesn't endanger fellow citizens and abridge their rights--but it would if my disregard caused an accident.

 

[GlockGirl4]

I wouldnt break the law if it involves my guns....
and yes i do talk on my cell... but GREAT point!!!!!
too bad the top dogs dont see that.

 

[Chisel Head]

...If no other means restores your rights, then violent revolution might be in order.

It's worked, before, and our 2nd Amendment dictates that it's not off the table!...

I personally think that there are a sufficient amount of rights which have already been taken away, a long time ago, to justify a revolution. However, this would never succeed, without military back-up. Thereafter, those who have commited treason will have to be brought to pay their debt to society. Otherwise, the revolution would be short lived. Once the media has been freed, society can begin with serving justice and this can be documented for future generations to take lesson

 

[Werewolf]

You have many rights today that most people the world over don't have because some men that lived well over 200 years ago did break bad laws.

 

[Mr White]

You CCW should never be revealed unless you draw it.
You should never draw it unless your live depends on you using it.
Alive and in a world of crap is still a lot better than dead.
You fill in the blanks.
That's all.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If there were never any unjust laws...

There would never have been a Mohandas Ghandi, or a Martin Luther King, or...

A Harriet Tubman, or a John Brown, or...

A Thurgood Marshall, or an Allan Gura, or...

A George Washington, or a Nathan Hale.

I think these persons have outlined for us the possible responses to intolerable laws. I am in awe.

 

[Picard]

Law is not what determines what is good or what is not. It is supposed to reflect a pre-existing reality that is apart from the law. In that way, bad laws can be passed and those laws should be stricken out.

Slavery is one such example. Bad laws protected it. While these laws exist, I would suggest rallying people together to try and change them.

Some bad laws, however, must be broken and cannot be followed. What laws are those and whether they exist today is a whole other topic of discussion.

 

[Triphammer]

Seems to me, it was tried in the early 1920s w/ alcohol. People in general lost all respect for "LAW" in general & BATFE got it's start.

 

[Chisel Head]

...Slavery is one such example. Bad laws protected it...

Which bad laws are you talking about? It seems to me that slavery wasn't illegal. Because, nobody thought that there was anything wrong with it

 

[BigBlock]

Most laws are there simply for the government to control the sheeple and collect revenue when you break them. Most of them have nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong or what's safe.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Which bad laws are you talking about? It seems to me that slavery wasn't illegal. Because, nobody thought that there was anything wrong with it

No, a great many of the founding fathers did indeed feel there was something wrong with it. But, many states depended on slavery financially so they just closed one eye and left it alone. These states were unwilling to ratify a Constitution if there was talk of outlawing slavery.

Some argued very strongly against it early in US history but they were always outvoted.

There was even a little war that involved slavery, though it was never really a "war to free the slaves" as is taught in history classes today.

 

[ctdonath]

It's a legal dilemma, not a moral one.

 

[Biker]

I'll ditto ctdonath.

Biker

 

[twoclones]

The proper course of action would have been to prevent the loss of your rights in the first place. It's probably more difficult to get them back than to keep them in the first place.

 

[Blackbeard]

I don't think there's a moral component to this at all. Is it immoral to drive 5 MPH over the speed limit?

Not all laws are based on moral principles. With things like this it's entirely risk vs. reward. You have to weigh the benefits vs. the consequences if you're caught.