Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

[MisterMike]

I just noted something in another member's signature line that caused me to ponder an important question-- the signature line is (more or less), "The Second Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit." To me, that suggests that, despite laws to the contrary, one is legally and morally permitted to carry concealed according to his conscience and beliefs.

This question is something I've tossed in my noggin around for a while (though I only carry "legally," in accordance with statute). It does seem to me that many, if not most, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional, a violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. And, as some here are quick to point out, the Bill of Rights did not purport to create any rights, only to recognize and protect them. In that view, the right to carry a weapon is an even more fundamental right, one that no government has the right to infringe upon.

So, here's my question: Understanding that the mantra at THR is to always obey the law, do you feel obliged to do so in instances where you believe "the law" is antithetical to the the higher law, recognized in the Constitution?

When, if ever, is civil disobedience appropriate in a question relating to basic Constitutional or human rights?

 

[svaz]

Well, by definition, one can't knowingly engage in civil disobedience without knowingly breaking the law. That said, it is a matter of personal conviction and threat assessment plus moral calculation as to whether breaking the law is worth the potential trouble.

Above all, to me at least, civil disobedience means understanding that you may get your a$$ kicked, your property confiscated, and your liberty suspended and you agree, upfront, that you won't raise a finger to prevent it, and that you are willing to do it again, and again, and again.

I've CCW without license when I felt it in my best interest, sure. The threat assessment was moderate; the potential for 'getting caught', low. I don't consider it civil disobedience, I consider it a survival tactic devoid of political consideration.

My $0.02

 

[husbandofaromanian]

Our government commits many wrongs including a mamoth violation of the 10th ammendment using the commerce clause as a poor excuse.

We are currently winning the day BIG with:

A. Winning the Heller case
B. Montana & Tennessee stating that firearms manufactured and used only in that state cannot be regulated by the federal government.
C. The current incorporation suit in the Supreme court.

Therefor, I can't imagine why you feel the need to fight the government in a battlefield you are going to lose in, while on the larger battle field we are winning.

 

[Justin]

When, if ever, is civil disobedience appropriate in a question relating to basic Constitutional or human rights?

Civil disobedience can be an admirable and fantastic thing.

That said, most of the idiots on the internet who encourage defiance of unconstitutional law have little to no understanding of the point of undertaking such activities in the first place.

If you opt to flaunt a law you find reprehensible, you had damned well be ready to face the consequences, which could include physical violence, arrest, prosecution, legal sanction and jail time. On top of that, you need to be in a position where your arrest is both in the public eye and likely to result in the average person believing that you're aggrieved to such an extent that they come to believe that the law needs to be changed.

If you look at examples of civil disobedience, those who chose to undertake them were uniformly willing to step up and publicly state why they believed the laws were unreasonable, and they were willing to break the laws in plain view in order to provoke the state into an overreaction, thereby making their point.

If all of the above sounds like a fine past time to you, and you've exhausted other avenues to get the law changed via more traditional methods, by all means, proceed.

But if you carry a handgun without a permit, in violation of the laws, you're not doing any of these things. All you're doing is surreptitiously breaking the law. Deluding yourself into believing that you're taking some kind of moral stand by doing so is plainly idiotic, and does nothing to further the cause of the RKBA. In fact, if you ever get busted, you're going to hurt the movement far more than help it.

 

[Restorer]

What Justin said. Amen.

 

[Tommygunn]

If you live in a area where you can get a CCW permit, then get a CCW permit.
I don't agree (philosophically) that one should need a permit to carry a gun, but given where I live that it's easily available and costs $20.00 per year it's a bargain compared to what it would cost me to defend a criminal charge -- and I have been in a situation where a police officer became aware (through necessity and chain of events) that I had a firearm.
Martin Luther King was perhaps the most pre-eminent practitioner of civil disobediance. Keep in mind that he was a firm believer in standing up for what one does and "take the lumps" when caught. In fact he wrote an incredibly important monograph while incarcerated in an Alabama jail.

 

[RainDodger]

Of course there is a a time for C.D. Look at the country you live in and its early history.

 

[MisterMike]

Those interested in the topic, might want to take a look at Henry David Thoreau's thoughts on it . . . this was my introduction to the concept many, many years ago. You can read it here: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

Justin, I think your points are well-taken. My feeling is that we're moving in the right direction, though we may not achieve full justice in my lifetime. Having grown up in the 1960s, the heyday of civil disobedience in this country, it is interesting to note that those people did effect change. As you've noted, they were often beaten, imprisoned, and otherwise vilified. Most were never personally exonerated, but they did change the course of our laws and social thinking.

 

[everallm]

A sig line does not constitutional law make....thank god.

Nowhere in the historic background, analysis or law around 2A is there ANY expectation that CCW is a constitutional right.

Open Carry would be arguable as the B in RKBA,

 

[Eaglecreekbrewer]

The way I read the Constitution, it is just short of a mandate for civil disobedience.

The 1A, all about telling your leaders the way it's going to be.
The 2A, the power to force them back across the line when they have crossed it.

Politicians and lawyers have done nothing but to try and water down the peoples power and try to redefine it to suit their agenda and promote their power.

Remember this nation was founded by men willing to partake in civil disobedience against tyranny. IMO we dishonor them, this nation and the Constitution if we are simply unwilling to recognize there is a time and a place for the same action if the need arises.

 

[MT GUNNY]

Right now there are a bunch of collage students, demonstrating in a way that is Civil Disobedience. If they were to First Protest along the line of the law, it would be more beneficial. However there Comes a time when One or many must stand there ground, and be forceful in the face of Tyranny.

I think My sig line is more law abiding than what the OP is talking about. imo

 

[X-Rap]

I would not look at carrying in a non permisive environment as a case of civil disobedience and frankly would keep such an action very close as far as passing that info along. If you feel the need to do it be sure you are ready for the consequences if you are found out.

 

[Just One Shot]

I would say it is the politicians that are being disobedient by not honoring their oath to protect the constitution.

 

[makarovnik]

Of course there is a time and place for civil disobedience. But don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Owen Sparks]

When, if ever, is civil disobedience appropriate?

Only when the government breaks the law.

Is the Federal government violating your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Would you tolerate similar restrictions on other constitutionally protected items such as newspapers or Bibles?

Think about it.

What if you could be jailed for manufacturing or selling newspapers without a federal newspaper license?

What if you could be arrested for possessing an unregistered Bible?

Or thrown in jail for removing the serial number from one?

What if the Government found a way around the First Amendment by criminalizing the possession of printed political material if you carried it concealed in such a way that the authorities could not see it?

"But guns kill people" you say.

It is true that a gun can be dangerous in the hands of a criminal, but not nearly as dangerous as ideas. Remember what happened when a criminal named Lenin read a book by Karl Marx? After all, 'the pen is mightier than the sword' and thoughts and ideas about religion and politics have led to the deaths of a lot more people than crime ever will.

 

[eye5600]

Most instances of Civil Disobedience as a lever for political change involve a small fine, or at most, a few days in jail for some offense like disturbing the peace or parading without a permit. Even Thoreau, who I think is way overrated, paid only a tiny fine on his way to immortality.

Committing some gun law violation and being charged with a felony is a whole different thing. It would ruinous to you personally, especially as to gun rights. If you want to change these laws, then back the smart and successful lawyers. You are more likely to do good, and less likely to suffer for no good reason.

 

[bgrav321]

I keep seeing references to our founding fathers using civil disobedience. I thought the reason there was a war was because it was a military conflict. The actions of Ghandi/Martin Luther King etc are not the same as our revolution, which technically began with gunfire being exchanged between citizens and government forces.

Civil disobedience means you don't resist and just accept the consequences of your actions, be it jail, fines, or disenfranchisement. The founding fathers fought back.

 

[Steve Marshall]

Yes. The American Revolution was an example. Some that didn't make the cut, the shredding of the Constitution by President Lincoln, The war on indigenous populations, the federal attack on the bonus marchers, the incarceration of Japanese citizens in concentration camps during WW11, various, but admittedly smaller atrocities, such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. The Federal Government has a knack for getting away with, literally, murder. And yet 50% of gun owners voted for Gore. We are our own enemy.
Now, should you decide become a civil disobediant, be prepared to pay the price. The correct way is through the courts and legislature.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...we may not achieve full justice in my lifetime...

Nor in anyone's life time. There will always be disagreement about what constitutes "full justice." Similarly, there will always be disagreement about the application of the Constitution to particular situations.

...Politicians and lawyers have done nothing but to try and water down the peoples power and try to redefine it to suit their agenda and promote their power....

Enough people like what the politicians are doing to elect and re-elect them. (Lawyers are hired guns.)

 

[Owen Sparks]

Violent civil disobedience is a not wise or necessary way to resist tyranny.
The one weakness of a big centralized state is that it can’t feed itself. Government produces nothing and therefore relies on coercive taxation for its sustenance. All it would take to collapse the leviathan state and restore the Republic to its constitutional role would be for 1% of the taxpayers to withdraw their support from the federal government. There is not enough room to hold them in the already overcrowded prison system and it would clog up the courts and overburden law enforcement. Also, when the citizenry saw peaceable friends, relatives and neighbors being arrested and hauled off it would generate sympathy and cause even more tax resistance until the entire system collapsed.

 

[61chalk]

As being in the past involved in civil disobedience, which I can not go into because
I respect the rules of THR. I will say that small numbers will most likely not change anything in the big scheme of things, an you must be willing to pay the price, an those around you including the leaders, an when an if they decide the price is too high, it will go down the drain. The government as George Washington said..."..is a dangerous servant an a fearful master". We do need to fight for our rights, but when it comes to disobedience we had better have the numbers, an this would probably only come if all of our rights were threatened in a case such as all guns are being outlawed an the congress an senate was backing it an trying to enforce it. In that case a strong civil disobedience call could come from Thomas Jefferson..."The strongest reason for people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in the government."

 

[Straight Shooter]

In my opinion the purpose of civil disobedience is to break a law in order to push the issue into the courts in an attempt to have the law changed. The point is to be caught and prosecuted.

A law can not be changed unless either:
A. Legislators pass a new law revoking or changing the offensive law
B. The courts rule to set precedent that alters the effect of the law or rule that the law is unconstitutional.

A. requires that you vote for what you want
B. requires taking one for the team

Breaking the law quietly because you do not agree with it is simply breaking the law, not civil disobedience.

 

[TimM]

Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

Ask Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine......

 

[cyclopsshooter]

Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

Ask the guys in county lockup....

 

[Cosmoline]

The line between protesting an anti-gun law by breaking it and armed rebellion is too fuzzy for my liking. Not to say there isn't a time and place for it in theory, but it's a wee bit different than sitting in the front of the bus. For example, if you carry openly into a federal building in violation of a law you believe to be unconstitutional, they're not going to sick dogs on you or squirt you with a hose. They're just going to blow you away right on the spot. So then are you going to defend yourself? What if there are a few dozen of you?