Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

[AKElroy]

Look at history for a few clues as to when it is warranted. We suffered over 100 years of tyranical British rule before our founders felt justified in signing the Declaration. As for Justin's comments about being willing to pay the price, most of these men lost everything, including sons to the cause.

We were an occupied state, facing forced service, having no redress, representation or freedom. Farms and homesteads were siezed, elections were rigged; as Jefferson stated, "he is eating out our substance".

We are facing IMO more governmental malfeesance than at any time in my life, and we may have a difficult time recovering long term. That said, we are NO WHERE NEAR what our forefathers faced before walking down that road. We can still effect elections, we can still voice our concerns, we can still demand action & see results.

Our involvement matters. When these efforts cease to have any effect, well then......

 

[Frank Ettin]

AKElroy, very well said.

 

[-eaux-]

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.

well said. i tend to keep my "civil disobedience" to myself as i see fit for the situation at hand.
that being said, i also respect my fellow citizen enough in most situations that there should never be any reason for my intentions to be called into question.
what's in my britches is my business, what's in your britches is yours.

 

[divemedic]

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.

Too bad we don't live in a Democracy, then your theory might carry some weight. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is there to limit the power of the majority. If it were not, 51% of the public could vote to silence the other 49%. I do agree we are getting closer to that model, but the COTUS is supposed to prevent that.

 

[Dannix]

+1 for AKElroy post. We have plenty to be thankful for, even see we see some level of tyranny. One big difference I see between our heritage and today is that people nowadays seem to generally either lack discernment or don't care.


With regard to bearing arms (in an area that unconstitutionally restricts it), I guess it just comes down to risk assessment. I don't work the night shift in downtown Chicago, NYC, et al, but for those Americans that do I would hard pressed to criticize any defensive precautions they might take.

 

[sig228]

ccw without a permit? maybe its your god given right, but its gonna cost this guy at least $7,000:

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=65679

 

[chuckusaret]

There has been an increase in activity by some of the activist groups in my part of the state. Because of the many changes being forced on the people by the the government, I am quite sure we will experience some form of civil discontent by the activist groups in the very near future. I dread the day.

 

[Tommygunn]

ccw without a permit? maybe its your god given right, but its gonna cost this guy at least $7,000:

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/ph...p?f=36&t=65679

Ouch -- I believe he's on a different forum I visit, and he mentioned "legal troubles" in a post there but didn't specify because the post was on a tangential matter.

Still, keep in mind that $7000 may be a cheap price to pay. I am NOT suggesting that people CCW without the required license, or do it in places that forbid it. Still if one intends to do so, KEEP IT QUIET! And DON'T ADVERTISE IT!

If it does save your life, atleast you're around for the consequences.

 

[Oyeboten]

Bureaucracy is the real front line for tyrany and suppression...and the mechanisms of bureaucracy shield tyrants and criminals, promote wan surrender and dependence, and, suffocate anything better.


Civil disobedience thence becomes an issue for the 'iron stomachs' of bureaucratic mechanism to digest by their usual indifference.

 

[divemedic]

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.

Let me rephrase that for you:


And black folks who just refuse to give up their seat on the bus because they find it personally inconvenient to abide by the law can not claim to be helping third parties, like the Underground Railroad.

or maybe:

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

There you go. I love to see folks defend liberty, I tell ya.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And black folks who just refuse to give up their seat on the bus because they find it personally inconvenient to abide by the law can not claim to be helping third parties, like the Underground Railroad.

or maybe:

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

Those are examples of public civil disobedience. The act is committed openly and prosecution is thus invited.

That's very different from the surreptitiously act of illegally carrying a concealed weapon. As Justin put it so eloquently in post 4

...But if you carry a handgun without a permit, in violation of the laws, ... 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]

The Constitution is there to limit the power of the majority.

The Constitution is there to define the powers granted the government thereby putting limits on government authority. The majority has less power because government has less authority.

The difference may be slight but it is very important.

 

[BrianB]

If you're even going to break the law to change the law, then you had better have a TON of friends as committed as you. Until then:

1. Educate yourself and others on your local political candidates and reps
2. VOTE in primaries and general elections
3. Obey the laws as they are, while campaigning to change them via the 1st Amendment
4. Be a "Class Act" representative of what you believe.

There's a difference between BEING extremist/fringe and being LABELED as extremist/fringe. Unfortunately, in today's 24/7 media world, the difference doesn't really matter. Be smart and fight the fight you can win. Choose your battles wisely.

Right now, there's a lot going for us with this Supreme Court. You gotta love the irony!

 

[Gungnir]

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.

Ok lets think about this, from an idealistic perspective and a realistic perspective.

Idealistically
The second amendment makes no distinction as to whether you carry concealed or not, and as the constitution of the US incorporating the Bill of Rights this is the absolute supreme law of the land and according to those laws no government at any level can infringe on a natural right enumerated (or not) in the Bill of Rights (assuming that the amendment was incorporated), specifically cannot infringe the 2nd Amendment. Therefore concealed carrying anywhere under constitutional law according to that law cannot be illegal, thus you have committed no crime.

Realistically
Should you be caught carrying concealed illegally, you better have a huge amount of conviction that your action is warranted, and be prepared to potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court, and spend considerable resources to overturn many city and state ordinances and statutes that usually require a permit to concealed carry at all (I live in a State that requires no permit to concealed carry so I can't help you on this) under the defense that those ordinances and/or Statutes and/or Federal Law are infringing your 2nd amendment rights.

So that's my perspective YMMV

 

[everallm]

Gungnir

Actually 2A as written and as interpreted by the Founding Fathers, Blackstone etc does NOT automatically equate to a "right" to CCW.

It is a right to keep and bear arms which was generally understood to be Open Carry and not Concealed Carry

The various states have enacted laws that permit concealed carry but this is a legislated "privilege" and not an inherent right.

Arguing that CCW is an inherent 2A "right" would probably be harder than getting 2A incorporated.

Now, the other side is that if 2A is incorporated via the P+I element of the 14th Amendment, that could lay the groundwork for a later case that posits the discretionary and disparate individual state application aspect of CCW is unconstitutional.

Be careful what you wish for though as you could end up with a federal mandated and US wide CCW with equally applied but high requirements.......

 

[Gungnir]

everallm,

Remember that the whole statement about the 2A made no distinction was in the Idealistic section, the fact that the accepted interpretation is that this is open carry not concealed carry is not written in the 2A.

 

[jpatterson]

AKElroy put something similar to what I wanted to say, only his post made more sense. I don't see anything like that happening in any of our lifetimes. At least I hope.

 

[mustang_steve]

Nevermind wrong thread....I have no idea how I screwed this up...

 

[Owen Sparks]

There was a time and place where it was crime to be jewish. That did not make it right just because the group in power decided it was.

 

[divemedic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by divemedic
...And black folks who just refuse to give up their seat on the bus because they find it personally inconvenient to abide by the law can not claim to be helping third parties, like the Underground Railroad.

Those are examples of public civil disobedience. The act is committed openly and prosecution is thus invited.

Uh- no. The UNDERGROUND railroad was called UNDERGROUND because it operated in secret. That is why so many old homes from that period have hidden rooms in them.

Read this:

By 1856, Tubman's capture would have brought a $40,000 reward from the South. On one occasion, she overheard some men reading her wanted poster, which stated that she was illiterate. She promptly pulled out a book and feigned reading it. The ploy was enough to fool the men.

Does that sound like an open act that invited prosecution? A $40,000 reward in 1856 is over $900,000 today. That means that for the "crime" of helping 300 people escape slavery, she was wanted under a reward that is worth more than 7 of the FBIs 10 most wanted COMBINED. Only 3 men of the current 10 most wanted command a larger reward: Bin Laden ($25 million), Bulger (a serial killer $2 million), Gerena (armed robbery $1 million). The other 7 command only $100,000 each.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The UNDERGROUND railroad was called UNDERGROUND because it operated in secret....

Of course it was. That isn't the public civil disobedience. It was a criminal act to protect someone else. While it was criminal conduct, at least those who engaged in in were doing so for the benefit of other, innocent victims of the evil of slavery.

Carrying a weapon illegally concealed is just a criminal act for one's personal convenience.

...And black folks who just refuse to give up their seat on the bus...

That is an act of public civil disobedience. It is a crime committed openly inviting prosecution.

...And folks who just publish unapproved books ...

And that is also a public act.

 

[DRZinn]

While it was criminal conduct, at least those who engaged in in were doing so for the benefit of other, innocent victims of the evil of slavery.

Carrying a weapon illegally concealed is just a criminal act for one's personal convenience.

And why would those be in different categories? Both are criminal acts committed deliberately to serve what is right rather than what is allowed. What difference does it make if it is done for oneself or for others?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...While it was criminal conduct, at least those who engaged in in were doing so for the benefit of other, innocent victims of the evil of slavery.

Carrying a weapon illegally concealed is just a criminal act for one's personal convenience.

And why would those be in different categories? Both are criminal acts committed deliberately to serve what is right rather than what is allowed. What difference does it make if it is done for oneself or for others?

First, I would question whether illegally carrying a concealed weapon is to "serve a right." Rather it has a personal motive; it is a selfish act that serves a personal desire.

The people who helped operate the Underground Railroad had altruistic motives. They risked discovery and punishment not for their personal benefit or for personal gain. They risked their freedoms and futures to directly, manifestly and materially help others escape what they considered an unjust situation.

The person who carries a weapon illegally conceal seeks to benefit himself. The courageous people of the Underground Railroad sought to give other people a new and better life for themselves.

 

[Officers'Wife]

The person who carries a weapon illegally conceal seeks to benefit himself. The courageous people of the Underground Railroad sought to give other people a new and better life for themselves.

So, it's only OK to ignore government seizing power over the individual if for altruistic reasons? In that case we should return the country to England as the Founders reasons do not meet the crit.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it's only OK to ignore government seizing power over the individual if for altruistic reasons? In that case we should return the country to England as the Founders reasons do not meet the crit.

Balderdash!

[1] Are you suggesting that the Founders caused the Colonies to break from Great Britain for their personal benefit?

[2] The Revolution was certainly "public."

[3] The Declaration of Independence was made openly and notoriously. The document itself was signed by people using their real names and sent to King George.

So when our heretofore clandestine, illegal concealed carrier sends a letter, signed with his real name and address, to his local Chief of Police stating his intention to carry a concealed gun without a permit in protest of the State's unconstitutional restriction on the RKBA, you can start drawing parallels between his illegal act and the conduct of our Founding Fathers.