Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

[Tinpig]

Absolutely-

Look at the courageous women in 1955 who refused to obey a Montgomery, Ala. city ordinance that required them to give up their bus seats just because they were black.

They were arrested, the law was challenged and eventually overturned by the courts. It took the defiance of a few to accomplish what today we take for granted.

Tinpig

 

[Cosmoline]

Or look at the Black Panthers who carried openly into the California Assembly. The state gun laws were restricted greatly and have only gotten worse.

 

[SalchaketJoe]

Make time to read this. "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Written over 150 years ago. If all high school students in this country were required to read and understand this than maybe we wouldnt be where we are today as a nation.
My only gripe is that it is heavy on God which distracts from the point.

 

[sledhead76]

Justin is absolutely correct, there is a very specific and rarely occurring set of circumstances where civil disobedience would produce a positive outcome. Your time and energy would be much better spent as someone above posted supporting the lawyers hard at work on the task. Start a petition and get a bill introduced at your local or state level. Speak with your representatives. Run for office. Vote.

 

[danbrew]

So perhaps the question should not be civil disobedience, but armed resistance? Will we reach a point in our society where actively fighting against the government will be seen by the masses as one possible outcome of an overbearing government? Perhaps. But don't forget that when you become more of an annoyance to the government, they have a habit of sending in large groups of men with guns, tanks, etc.

Since we're way off topic already, we've already begun an economic war between the "haves" and the "have nots". It's not going to get any prettier in the next four or five years, imho.

 

[Water-Man]

Yes, and now is as good as it gets!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Look at the courageous women in 1955 who refused to obey a Montgomery, Ala. city ordinance that required them to give up their bus seats just because they were black.

They were arrested, the law was challenged and eventually overturned by the courts. It took the defiance of a few to accomplish what today we take for granted.

The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support in the Eastern Intellectual, Media and Economic establishments and on college campuses around the country. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country. Acts of civil disobedience were celebrated in the major media outlets.

Those courageous women were not alone. Their acts were not isolated events.

 

[w_houle]

Unfortunately it is too early for civil disobedience until it's too late.

 

[Zeke/PA]

We MUST a responsible citizens obey the law as it is written.
This is especially true for gun owners who may not totally agree on what might be considered a breach our 2A rights but are constantly exposed to the public eye by the CRIMINAL MISUSE of firearms.
As our economy keeps collapsing and those in charge keep making bad decisions, a revolt of some kind here in America is inevitable.
For right now, let's use the voting booth to send a message to the corrupt, self-serving ,do-nothing people in our Congress.
The 2010 elections loom, vote OUT ANY incumbent.

 

[Owen]

armed rebellion is NOT Civil Disobedience.

 

[divemedic]

We MUST a responsible citizens obey the law as it is written.

I disagree. The American people have a long history of disobeying unjust laws.

The FFs did not obey unjust laws. That is why the Crown began quartering troops and performing the other such nonsense that sparked the revolution.

The Underground railroad violated tons of laws, including the fugitive slave act.

Years ago in the days before shall issue, I lived in Virginia. I got hassled by the law too many times for open carry, so CCWed illegally. IIRC, it was a misdemeanor at the time, and I felt that the risk was worth it.

 

[goon]

Ghandi and Martin Luther King thought so...

 

[Guns and more]

Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

Of course, just be prepared to pay the price.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Years ago in the days before shall issue, I lived in Virginia. I got hassled by the law too many times for open carry, so CCWed illegally. IIRC, it was a misdemeanor at the time, and I felt that the risk was worth it.

That is not civil disobedience. That is simple criminal conduct.

Justin has it absolutely right.

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.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Nothing really changes until a group of people get heartily sick of institutionalized arrogance and stand up to say enough. Our country was founded by such people, our Constitution was written by such people. I remember hearing about a group of blacks in the 40's or 50's took back the vote against the local law enforcement at gun point. However, such actions are doomed to failure in todays' society. Wickard v. Filburn pretty much drove the final nail in the coffin of individual liberty in this country. And the majority feel it to be a moral imperative to obey despite the illegality of the law. It's a pity but it's a fact of life.

 

[SGR]

This topic, and the following posts are a great example of why I come to this place everyday. There are some deep thinkers in this group!

 

[divemedic]

That is not civil disobedience. That is simple criminal conduct.

So was helping slaves escape through the underground railroad.
It was illegal for a black woman to refuse to give up her seat on the bus to a black man.
During WW2 it was legal to imprison thousands of Americans of Japanese descent, and confiscate their property.
George Washington and the other founding fathers tarred and feathered tax collectors, killed tax collectors and their families, and burned their houses to the ground. All criminal conduct.
I am guessing that you are ready to turn in your guns as soon as it becomes illegal to have them.

I leave you with a few quotes:

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison...the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

 

[9MMare]

I believe that we recently saw an incident of civil obedience here in Seattle. The (lame) outgoing mayor just passed a city gun law that is contrary to state laws. It says people cannot carry in community centers, parks, places where children gather (paraphrased).

Apparently you cant challenge a law unless there is an actual court case? Because a local lawyer called the press and when a community center opened for the day, entered carrying his legally owned handgun.

He was politely asked to leave, the press recorded it all, the cops were there making sure it didnt escalate, and the lawyer politely left. He's now filing a case against the city of Seattle. (His is the 2nd suit filed)


Interestingly enough, the city says it is going to fight this on the basis that *private property owners* have the right to decide if people can carry guns on their property. So...the city has lawyers advising it that it can be legally classified as a 'private' entity????

Would you consider this civil disobedience?

 

[Tinpig]

Or look at the Black Panthers who carried openly into the California Assembly. The state gun laws were restricted greatly and have only gotten worse.

True, and the Panthers were not even violating any laws by carrying openly.

But the Black Panthers were a stridently militant and violent organization. I think the general public had much more sympathy with the passive civil disobedience of the black bus riders in Montgomery.

Tinpig

 

[longbeard48]

I believe that the Bill of Rights was written not as a permit to do certain things, but as a denial of the government to interfere with us doing those things.

 

[X-Rap]

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison...the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

Wasn't he from Massachusetts? How things have changed since his day.

 

[22-rimfire]

If one chooses to go this path, you need to make it very public. You more than likely will be arrested and jailed. You could loose many of your existing rights because of the activity even if non-violent. Tread lightly and be prepared for the consequences. Most of us aren't famous and hence the majority of the public will just view your activities as criminal.

 

[divemedic]

If one chooses to go this path, you need to make it very public.

again, I refer you to the underground railroad. Unless you believe that the people running the railroad were thieves stealing the property (slaves) of other men (slave owners).

Are the people in California, New Jersey, and Canada who have refused or neglected to register their ("assault") weapons practicing civil disobedience? Or are you maintaining that they are criminals unless they publicly submit to arrest and prosecution? Does this also mean that should the US ever pass a law making private firearms ownership illegal, that you will either turn your weapons in, or turn yourself in as a criminal?

 

[FROGO207]

There always will be a time to choose your battles. The way to change in a democracy is to legislate changes by popular vote. If the ruling party ignores the will of the majority then the second amendment goes into action. Until then the basic rights will have to be maintained or we will in essence become SUBJECTS. Citizens have rights, subjects are human sheep! My personal voting habits will change this next election time,I am not happy with congressional representation at the present here in Maine.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So was helping slaves escape through the underground railroad.
It was illegal for a black woman to refuse to give up her seat on the bus to a black man.
During WW2 it was legal to imprison thousands of Americans of Japanese descent, and confiscate their property.
George Washington and the other founding fathers tarred and feathered tax collectors, killed tax collectors and their families, and burned their houses to the ground. All criminal conduct....

Yes, it was just criminal conduct. There may have been a good motive, but it's still simple criminal conduct. It's not civil disobedience unless it's public. Justin laid it out perfectly. See Post 4.

And folks who just carry illegally because they find it personally inconvenient to abide by the law can not claim to be helping third parties, like the Underground Railroad.

Of course Washington and others got away with their crimes because we won the Revolution.

You quote Thoreau. One of the things you qulte him as saying is, "...the true place for a just man is also a prison..." If you would claim to be a just man, why aren't you in prison? At any rate, Thoreau spoke of open civil disobedience.