Pages

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Armed Civil Disobedience Goes Mainstream


Well, this piece gives the ol' Overton Window a shove to the right.

Or, as Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard put it, "Welcome to the party, pal!"

My Family’s Safety Is More Important than San Francisco’s Crazy Gun Laws
Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary. 
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a dreadful Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld a violation of what the Supreme Court has called a “basic right” — the right of self-defense. San Francisco’s police code states that no person may keep a handgun in his residence unless the handgun is either carried on his person or “stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.”  
The Ninth Circuit upheld this restriction despite compelling evidence that this restriction rendered handguns “inoperable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” during the hours when “robberies of occupied dwellings” are most likely to occur.  
And so the law remains in effect, with violations punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1,000.  
If I lived in San Francisco, I would violate that law. San Francisco’s anti-gun ideology is simply not worth risking my family’s safety. I do not have confidence that — even with practice — my wife and older children would be able to unlock a safe as quickly as necessary, under extreme stress (nor am I completely confident that I could do it).
In fact, it’s hard to see a clear downside to violating the law. Yes, there are criminal penalties for noncompliance, but San Francisco isn’t doing house-to-house searches for gun safes. It simply doesn’t have the resources to systematically enforce this law, and it never had any intention of systematically enforcing the law. Instead, it’s counting on the least dangerous gun owners in America (the law-abiding cohort) to voluntarily render themselves more vulnerable.
...
As the state continues to grow, intruding into homes, regulating speech, and sometimes even compelling participation in immoral acts, more Americans will choose to protect their families and their integrity over conforming to state ideology. Their choice won’t be a matter of political calculation — or part of an effort to build a larger social movement. Instead, it will be a matter of simple moral necessity.
Of course it is.  Malum prohibitum ("wrong only because they prohibit it") laws have been violated in good conscience by saints (David, Elijah, Daniel, Esther, Christ, Peter, Wycliffe, etc.) and the secular alike, especially in time of dire human need.

When the equivalent of the Ferguson, Baltimore, LA, or #dimepiececookout riots come to your neighborhood, town or, God forbid, neck of the woods, you had better be able to defend your family, with deadly force if necessary.  And a gun in a safe or with a trigger lock (!) on it is going to be useless.

And by the way, the piece above mentions Charles Murray’s new book,  By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission.  It's on Ol' Backwoods' reading list.

Yes, armed civil disobedience is becoming more mainstream.  I for one appreciate those who helped get us to this point.   Across the country, from New York, to Connecticut, to Colorado, to Washington State, and now Oregon, gun owners are nullifying these unconstitutional laws by their armed disobedience.  And more will come.

We must.  Ours and our families' lives depend on it.

No comments:

Post a Comment