This decision is a personal choice each individual must make for themselves.
So why the post on a public forum? The premise takes for granted that non-compliance is a non-option based on the OP's own set of rules, admittedly based on his own personal feelings/experiences/conclusions. That is simply not the case for all, and more importantly shouldn't be assumed so when forming/predicting strategy or behavior at large. The more interesting question and discussion I think is what would motivate one to take the various possible (
not "acceptable") courses of action with regard to an onerous registration scheme foisted upon them.
1- Comply. Weighing penalties, benefits, and prediction of future events, a person taking this route would rely most upon the latter; either the registration and subsequent infringements are permanent/unassailable and therefore not worth resisting civilly, or they are expected to be overturned with such rapidity that there is no benefit to risking non-compliance (my advice to NY SAFE-ers
) on principle if a good test-case is already pending. Compliance makes sense when the outcome for violation is predictable, and there is no need to test the waters. You can still work against the law with no fear of repercussion this way
, but you are capable of being ignored
2- Do not Comply. Carrying much more risk, far fewer people take this option, and those who do so will tend to be motivated less by logic or self interest than by principle or emotion. They will also be much more radical and extreme being ruled by those double-edged swords and will be very much capable of hurting our image (which is different than hurting our cause, btw) with their loony stylings. They will also be far, far more charismatic and motivational for meaker resistors. Non-compliance will increase as risk decreases, of course, so the more resistors and weaker penalties/enforcement, the more impotent the law. More dangerous than compliance, but swords won more battles than boiled eggs for a reason.
This "nuclear option" carries the very significant but often overlooked hazard of poking holes in the wet paper bag we call law and order. Widespread disobedience forms a real danger to the system of law and damages the state's ability to manage our affairs, both wisely and malevolently; much like Chemo. One of the consequences of the Civil Rights movement's damage to faith in southern local governance is that were are no longer 'permitted' to manage our own elections or redistricting free of Imperial interference as expressly delineated in the Constitution. A large portion of the newfound resistance against federal gun laws stems from our decades-old inability to enforce similarly ham-fisted drug laws.
In short, compliance makes sense when the fate of the law is a foregone conclusion; when resisting it would change/prove nothing. Or when sufficient legal means exist to effect the desired changes with far less risk than non-compliance. Resistance serves to disrupt the "status quo" and generate momentum in times of stalemate or oppression --to one side or the other, depending on who's resisting
I would argue civil disobedience is extremely helpful and productive
if you can control/manage the people doing the resisting. If you merely uncork the bottle and allow a bunch of unhinged jerks to descend on the capital and wreck havoc, you irreparably damage your reputation. If you can get people to behave civilly while they disobey, you will win respect, and even admiration for your cause. I have no idea how Dr. King's people kept their protestors peaceful as much as they did. God knows a large portion of those folks were itching to start a violent riot at any time, but the "better angels" amongst the crowd kept those forces at bay. If the textbooks were filled with massive riots that destroyed our biggest cities and killed thousands, I doubt we'd look upon the movement with such loving eyes. It is important to remember, that regardless of the
potentialities, there has been no recent armed march on anything that ended in wholesale bloodshed or civil war in this nation. Even less recent with violence initiated by the protestors (Bonus Army,
maybe?). Remember those are the same warnings against concealed guns and private ownership, so take the naysayers with a grain of salt.
I believe legitimacy is still firmly on our side, and that resistance in the most corrupted and irredeemable places would
only be
justified (
not recommended or even wise) if the last remaining footholds of legal protection slide into the ocean (because those places are all coastal, you see
). The need is not quite there yet, since we still have a couple hopeful court cases rapidly moving to the front burner which could settle the issue peaceably, and onerous new laws are still being fended off in places as hostile in California (if only occasionally). Nationally, we more or less have what momentum there is on the gun issue, and nothing short of a dude with a CCW saving the president could advance our cause more than it is already. Separating ourselves from irrelevant distractions like the Naval Yard shooting is far more important (I mean no disrespect to the severity of the incident, and may peace be with the victims and their families, but it has nothing to do with gun rights)
A better thread title would be "Why Not Registering Your Guns
Now Would be a Mistake" or "Why Civil Disobedience is not
Yet Justified." There is a tipping point where compliance is more harmful than productive --though we are not quite there yet, it is unwise to deny that point's effect. A national compulsory formal registry* would be dangerously close to that point, and mandatory confiscation well beyond it. It's all a matter of perspective. Whatever the case, I agree that
hidden noncompliance is truly unproductive. Turn in your guns or overtly refuse, because hidden guns with no wielder are the proverbial "uncocked unloaded" pistol of no use to anyone.
TCB
*Though ATF forms and PRISM may be able to generate a list for the Feds with all gun owners on it, they are expressly forbidden by law from doing so. The list will therefore remain both hidden, and unusable for widespread enforcement tasks. Court cases would be thrown out by the thousands, and nihilist goose-stepping heavies confiscating guns is a figment of the imagination (until we start widely deploying land-drone Robocops and Terminators in about five years' time). Allowing the Feds
legitimate access to make such a list is far more dangerous, as that allows them to
legally begin drawing closed the list of 'approved' persons who may
legally be 'permitted' to keep and bear arms. After all, the Bill of Rights only applies to freemen and not slaves...er, "felons"
TCB
