Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control

[wow6599]

Civil disobedience is one thing, but rebellion is another

With all due respect Frank, just where is that line in the sand? King George probably said the same thing......

This may just be "Peacocking" by our fine legislature, but I like the message it sends.
Proud to be from a family who has lived in Missouri for 200 years.

 

[303tom]

With all due respect Frank, just where is that line in the sand? King George probably said the same thing......

This may just be "Peacocking" by our fine legislature, but I like the message it sends.
Proud to be from a family who has lived in Missouri for 200 years.

I Still Think We Need A Like Button !..................

 

[CZguy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Bar
...Mr. Ettin, if you care to, as this thread's chief critic of Missouri's recently passed law, would you switch sides for a moment and present evidence or argument in its favor?...

No thanks. I'll pass.

Mr Ettin,

I really would like to hear your arguments in favor of this bill. I feel that we could all learn a great deal.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Civil disobedience is one thing, but rebellion is another

With all due respect Frank, just where is that line in the sand?...

The line is civility -- eschewing violence and conflict, permitting yourself to be arrested, being passive, not fighting back. That's why it's called civil disobedience. It's too bad that you can't seem to understand such an obvious and simple distinction.

 

[316SS]

My point through all of this has been that this legislation does not sweep away the application of federal gun laws in Missouri as some seem to believe or wish. Any Missouri resident thinking of cobbling together a machine gun and finding refuge in this law from prosecution under the NFA would be well advised to reconsider that plan.

Instead, consider how to make the best political use of the strong support the law has garnered.

I agree with all of that.

the simple advocacy or condoning of violation of the law is unacceptable here.

From what I've read, the failure of the Canadian long gun registry I mentioned earlier came from simple non-compliance, not non-compliance as the basis for litigation. That and the huge cost of the system did sway public opinion, but not in any orchestrated way. Gun owners in Canada helped bring about the change they wanted by simply refusing to comply with the law.

There may be no reason to a priori completely dismiss civil disobedience as a tool to further the RKBA. But any effective use of that tactic will be more complicated than just violation gun laws we don't like; and any serious discussion of the topic must also acknowledge and address that complexity.

As you've pointed out in other threads, the Black Panthers are an example of a PR misstep backfiring against the RKBA. Armed black men were terrifying to enough people to result in significant push-back. However, I don't see a grass-roots, organic non-compliance movement as being necessarily bad. Rather, it might be the mandate that underpins an organized campaign against "bad" law.

A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?

This is a real problem for the RKBA. A person who will gladly drive on the interstate to their destination (dangerous) because they are afraid to fly (safe) is not going to respond to statistics about the relative risk of mass shootings.

Earlier in the thread, Frank, you mentioned that the feds might bring more resources to bear in Missouri to enforce federal law if the locals stand by. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Americans have a keen sense of fairness, and generally don't like to see a big guy pick on a little guy. If the fed start throwing their weight around, it might sway some fence sitters.