My Thanks for the input...and feedback
Folks, My thanks for the input, it told me a lot of what I needed to know. Some points:
---Some clarifications are probably in order. Some of you mentioned my affiliation with NJCSD (New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense). For the record, unless I state explicitly otherwise, I am speaking on my own behalf, and not the NJCSD. That is the default, if you will. If I'm trying something out for them, I'll say so. This one was for me. So, AR-10 and others, this is not the direction I had in mind for my erstwhile colleagues @ NJCSD. For them, we've still got plans A,B & C to work with. Civil disobedience is more like plan K.
---No one really grokked the notion that threatening FUTURE civil disobedience against laws NOT YET ENACTED doesn't actually break any laws. Part of what I was looking for was to see if that point stuck, and the answer is no, people don't see the difference between that and actual civil disobedience. For the time being, I'm classifying this as an unpredictable subtlety that probably should stay tucked away in the bag of tricks. Since there's no percieved difference between this and civil disobedience, then I guess there's only civil disobedience, which is only one potential strategy, if and when it should come to that.
---Civil disobedience is a hard one to pull off in a gun context, because whether we intend it to be or not, guns are too easily perceived as an implicit threat of violence, which is counter to the spirit and effectiveness of non violent civil disobedience. Lunch counter sit ins where effective in part because the main thing that was threatened wasn't corporeal. I doubt the sympathies of the nation would have mustered had all those brave folks strapped shotguns to their backs while they sitting. The situation would have been spin vulnerable, and the outcome would have been much different. (Shotguns vs. lynching parties is another matter, however)
Responsible gunowners tend to be more scrupulous of the law than most. Therefore, we are cautious always to fight for our gun rights after we have first laid aside our arms, lest people get the wrong idea. Additionally, both the law and public sentiment label ANY TRANSGRESSION to do with firearms as SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSES, and thus the trap is laid tight.
---This thread has really hilighted for me the fact that even within the progunowner community, there is no universal concensus on the need for action, it's form, it's goals, or the necessary level of intensity to achieve those goals. I think just about the only thing that everyone would sign up for is the lowest common denominator notion that things aren't great, and we hope they won't get any worse, like those poor SOB's in NJ, CA, MD, MA, NY, and IL. Other than that, we're all over the map, and vary widely in tolerance.
---whoami mentioned that perhaps this approach should be reworked, detailing the infringements and steps of redress that where tried and rejected. I experimentally wrote a paper along those lines, speaking in plain truths, building the case a block at a time. When I was done, I honestly could not avoid the conclusion that all 3 branches of government had failed to uphold the bill of rights. When seen laid out starkly bare like that, just about everyone who read it shat. The situation will have to approximate or exceed that of NJ on a national scale before that sort of thing even begins to become generally palatable.
---As I indicated, I'm stewing this one over, trying on different things to see how well (or not) they fit. The question I am grappling with is, in blunt terms, just what exactly will it take to reinstate to full glory the entire Bill of Right, in it's plain, unadulterated meaning? How do we make real, TODAY, the promise of Liberty and Justice for All?
IMHO, the biggest flaw in the Constitution was the lack of an explicit mechanism for enforcing the Bill of Rights. (I don't have a proposal, unfortunately.) Even the concept of judicial review evolved after the fact, rather than being explicitly spelled out.
The separation of powers helps somewhat, but are not proof against the levels of collusion between the various branches of government that we can infer from today's situation, or the extreme expansion of executive power.
Our best hope for a quick win is probably a SCOTUS ruling, but it seems that the 9 (nazgul? fellowship?) are doing everything in their power to duck the question.
I'm beat. Clicking send. Gnight.
]
