State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53:127]

[Phys251]

re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

For the state and populace, plenty. Those people could risk being charged with a felony, but then that goes to the SCOTUS and is likely to be overturned, so the people win. If it isn't overturned, well, shooting is an expensive sport so one would have to assume that the state would have to incarcerate a healthy percentage of their tax base, so while those people are in prison they are now net tax consumers instead of net tax payers so the state loses money. It's actually in the interests of everyone for these folks to fight the law.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that this is an awfully risky way to fight the law.

 

[LaMidRighter]

re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Perhaps, but the fact remains that this is an awfully risky way to fight the law.

No doubt about it. I think though that it's going to be bad for all, and you have to blame the creators of that law in this instance.

 

[Helix]

re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Moderator's Warning:

The uncivil stuff stops now. If you can't talk about this topic without baiting or attacking other posters, you will be ejected from the thread.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

You probably wanted Rosa Parks drawn and quartered.

Nope, I'm not racist. I support equality for everyone.

I wonder what it means when someone insinuates fighting racism and not registering a gun are equal in importance...

I'm sure taking down tyrannical governments is against someone's law too so forget that notion.

Rebellion is most certainly against the law. For more information, see: American Civil War.

If the law says to disarm, you think they should follow. Just to say they are law abiding? Screw that. The G want them, they can come try and take them.

The law didn't saw disarm, the law said register. Many people didn't, they are now suspected criminals. Do you support criminals?

That is a provable fact that gun owners in general are far more law abiding than non gun owning citizens.

There are tens of thousands gun owners who no longer get to make that claim.

Furthermore, I'd be interested to see your source on that. I wonder if you're not confusing what you said with "most gun owners are law abiding".

What the law does say is that a bad law must not be obeyed but OPPOSED. Are you a government agent now trying to persuade people to obey a bad law?

A bad law according to...who? You?

There is no requirement in law to obey a bad law.

Uhh...what? There's no requirement to obey any law, so long as you understand disobeying a law can lead to consequences you may later not enjoy.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

And I predict, the state will prosecute those people, plead them down to lesser offenses, and then stick them with hefty court costs and fines. The state still wins. Don't like a law, change it.

Some times it takes some civil disobedience to get your point across.

Rosa Parks comes to mind...

Lunch counter protests comes to mind...

Oh well.....

 

[jaeger19]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Oh goodie, another thread from gun delusional/paranoid zealots hell-bent on a Breitbart-style coup d'etat of government .

Sorry.. but nothing delusional about registration schemes and the Mass. law

 

[Linc]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

And here I thought conservatives were all about state's rights .

Sorry.. but nothing delusional about registration schemes and the Mass. law

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

The law didn't saw disarm, the law said register. Many people didn't, they are now suspected criminals. Do you support criminals?

I support anyone at anytime that refuses to abide by a law that disarms, forces registration, or calls for confiscation of US taxpayers firearms.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

I support anyone at anytime that refuses to abide by a law

So you support felons. Good to know.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

So you support felons. Good to know.

1) someone is not a felon for merely disregarding an unconstitutional law. They have to be convicted

2) there are some laws that are unjust


3) if people have their lives ruined by stupid laws is it fair if they in turn seek to ruin the lives of those who passed such laws or those who SUPPORTED such laws?

 

[BretJ]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Uhh...what? There's no requirement to obey any law, so long as you understand disobeying a law can lead to consequences you may later not enjoy.

As quite a few people who were part of the underground railroad, and the civil rights movement discovered. They should have known better eh?

 

[BretJ]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

So you support felons. Good to know.

Sly, don't you think that is being a bit petty?

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

1) someone is not a felon for merely disregarding an unconstitutional law. They have to be convicted

I've put the word "suspected" in front of criminal and/or felon in almost every post this thread, and you jump on the one time I didn't because I thought people would be intelligent enough to recognize what I meant based on all the other times I did use the word "suspected". Congratulations, you "got" me. Maybe you and some of those suspected felons you support can dance a jig together.

By the way, when you start a sentence, you're supposed to capitalize the first letter of the first word. I just figured since we're bogging ourselves down into meaningless technicalities, you'd like to know that.

2) there are some laws that are unjust

Agreed. But this is not an unjust law. It may be one you disagree with, but it is not unjust. It was passed at the state level by the elected officials of the state. It does not unfairly discriminate against anyone for reasons outside their control (such as race, sexuality or gender).

3) if people have their lives ruined by stupid laws is it fair if they in turn seek to ruin the lives of those who passed such laws or those who SUPPORTED such laws?

If someone has their life ruined by this law, it's only because they broke the law and continue to break the law. Nearly 70,000 applications have been submitted and those who submitted their applications are law abiding citizens (at least in this case). Their lives will not be ruined by this law. Only those who choose to disobey the law will have their lives ruined...but that would be their fault, not the fault of any laws.

As quite a few people who were part of the underground railroad, and the civil rights movement discovered. They should have known better eh?

My theory has always been you're welcome to stand up for what you believe in, just understand actions have consequences. These people who aren't registering their firearms...if they are not doing it because of some kind of protest then they are welcome to do so, as long as they aren't shocked if law enforcement greets them one day.

Sly, don't you think that is being a bit petty?

Maybe, but it's Crue Cab. He understands. He does the same to me in return.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

I've put the word "suspected" in front of criminal and/or felon in almost every post this thread, and you jump on the one time I didn't because I thought people would be intelligent enough to recognize what I meant based on all the other times I did use the word "suspected". Congratulations, you "got" me. Maybe you and some of those suspected felons you support can dance a jig together.

By the way, when you start a sentence, you're supposed to capitalize the first letter of the first word. I just figured since we're bogging ourselves down into meaningless technicalities, you'd like to know that.
Agreed. But this is not an unjust law. It may be one you disagree with, but it is not unjust. It was passed at the state level by the elected officials of the state. It does not unfairly discriminate against anyone for reasons outside their control (such as race, sexuality or gender).

If someone has their life ruined by this law, it's only because they broke the law and continue to break the law. Nearly 70,000 applications have been submitted and those who submitted their applications are law abiding citizens (at least in this case). Their lives will not be ruined by this law. Only those who choose to disobey the law will have their lives ruined...but that would be their fault, not the fault of any laws.

It is an unjust law. end of story. and I find those who support such unjust laws equally culpable as those who pass them

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

It is an unjust law. end of story. and I find those who support such unjust laws equally culpable as those who pass them

No, it's a law with which you disagree. Major difference. So if you want to support law breakers, that's fine, I just don't want to hear any more about all of the "law abiding citizens".

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

No, it's a law with which you disagree. Major difference. So if you want to support law breakers, that's fine, I just don't want to hear any more about all of the "law abiding citizens".

there is nothing valid about punishing people who own guns as an emotional reaction to the Newtown Killings-killings that would not have been prevented if this stupid law was in effect

tell me why the law is a good one and harassing gun owners-an act which you often support-is not sufficient

 

[Henrin]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

And I predict, the state will prosecute those people, plead them down to lesser offenses, and then stick them with hefty court costs and fines. The state still wins. Don't like a law, change it.

:lol:

So what is the purpose of gun registration again? What makes you think they know who they are? What makes you think the state can prosecute a huge segment of their population? When people reject a law pretty much outright like they have done here the state has little choice but to either back down or act in such a way that will only harm themselves.

 

[Henrin]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

No, it's a law with which you disagree. Major difference. So if you want to support law breakers, that's fine, I just don't want to hear any more about all of the "law abiding citizens".

When the majority of the population refuses to obey a law it's time to admit defeat and repeal the law.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

:lol:

So what is the purpose of gun registration again? What makes you think they know who they are? What makes you think they the state can prosecute a huge segment of their population? When people reject a law pretty much outright like they have done here the state has little choice but to either back down or act in such a way that will only harm themselves.

the scumbags want to keep passing more and more harassing laws hoping people will ignore them but that means if you use a gun for self defense you are put in a dilemma of being charged with having an illegal gun. That is the entire purpose of these assholes-to drive legal gun ownership underground. I am getting to the point that I hope those in CT fight back and bring this incremental nonsense to a head. And if TSHTF-those who bray loudly for these laws ought to be seen as legitimate targets of retaliation along with the assholes who pass such crap

what these laws prove is that those who pass them are not interested in crime control or stopping violent crime but rather making Criminals out of people who have never misused firearms

and those who support such laws are just as bad

 

[Linc]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

So you're comparing the tremendously awful plight that gun civil disobediencers are experiencing today in Connecticut
to the civil rights movement and underground railroad !

As quite a few people who were part of the underground railroad, and the civil rights movement discovered. They should have known better eh?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

When the majority of the population refuses to obey a law it's time to admit defeat and repeal the law.

Cincinnati passed a registration ordnance in 1989. I moved out of the city because I was a well known gun rights activist. but I also knew-because I was general counsel for two big dealers right outside the city limits, that hundreds of targeted firearms were owed in Cincinnati and when the mayor's office noted less than 100 were registered, I knew most people ignored the stupid law. It was repealed when Ohio passed a preemption act that properly prevented cities from passing their own gun bans

 

[BretJ]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

So you're comparing the tremendously awful plight that gun civil disobediencers are experiencing today in Connecticut
to the civil rights movement and underground railroad !

Not at all. I am stating that disobedience of a law is not necessarily the wrong thing to do as was suggested.

 

[Linc]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Then why have laws if you think that you, as an individual, think you are the arbiter of any law and above any law?
And to make a wrong right, I am a strong central gov't guy due to this very problem.
We in IL just became the last state to get CC.
The law is poorly written, being poorly instituted, and requires no gun signs which I abhor.

One National law trumping state's rights would solve the CC problem.
One National law would solve the CT situation.

Sooner or later, state's righters will realize their zeal in going too far in RED states
will be their undoing as we strive for normalcy in a Nation going forward .

Not at all. I am stating that disobedience of a law is not necessarily the wrong thing to do as was suggested.

 

[BretJ]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

No, it's a law with which you disagree. Major difference. So if you want to support law breakers, that's fine, I just don't want to hear any more about all of the "law abiding citizens".

How about this definition then, it is a relatively meritless law which offers very little value and has potential to be abused by authorities who may not understand the limit of their authority.

 

[BretJ]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Then why have laws if you think that you, as an individual, think you are the arbiter of any law and above any law.
And to make a wrong right, I am a strong central gov't guy due to this very problem.
We in IL just became the last state to get CC.
The law is poorly written, being poorly instituted, and requires no gun signs which I abhor.

One National law trumping state's rights would solve the CC problem.
One National law would solve the CT situation.

Sooner or later, state's righters will realize their zeal in going too far in RED states
will be their undoing as we strive for normalcy in a Nation going forward .

So if you disagree with the point I made, I take it you are saying it is never the right thing to do. I said that sometimes it is the right thing to do as opposed to the suggestion it is never the right thing to do. (I realize that he does not believe that it is never the right thing to do. I was just clarifying that point.......and being a bit petty)