3 hours ago
Even good people can live lives of contradiction and entertain ideas that simply aren’t true. For instance, if you’re a cop, it’s easy to justify an action by saying that your job is only to enforce the law, especially since, on paper, this is certainly so. But the implication that you enforce every law, across the board, every time, without discretion is absolutely untrue and you, I and everyone else knows it. You don’t ticket everyone driving 31 in a 30 zone, and many times even more egregious law-breakers get off with a warning. Some laws aren’t applied at all, such as a parking law in my town an officer told me was on the books but that “we don’t enforce.” You use discretion all the time.
As for legislation such as Connecticut’s new gun restrictions, ask yourself this question, guys: If I caught my brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter with some legally acquired but now illegal 30-round magazines in his car trunk, would I slap him in cuffs, haul him in and put him in the system? Let’s face it, you know the answer. And, well, the person you would haul in and arrest for this newly minted “crime” would be someone else’s brother, sister, father, mother, son or daughter. Of course, this argument could justify refusal to enforce most any law, since family will virtually always receive special treatment. So is there a sound rationale for refusing to enforce a law across the board?
Any sane person agrees that no one can simply follow orders blindly, that, at some point, a command itself can become criminal in the moral sense. For instance, would you enforce a law stating that all members of a certain racial or ethnic group were to be rounded up for extermination? Yes, this is an extreme example, and I don’t pretend that the new Second Amendment violations even approach such wickedness. The point, however, is that everyone draws a line -- it’s just a question of where. And I’d certainly hope that you, my friends in law enforcement, would take a stand somewhere below genocide.Of course, that leaves the person who decides not to enforce an unconstitutional law in a quandary. If one enforces such laws, in the short term there will be no consequences, but in the long term there may be serious consequences, as the defendants at Nuremberg discovered. If one chooses not to enforce such a law, against explicit orders to do so, one may be disciplined or fired. One may then find it difficult to obtain work to maintain one's family. As Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." Many of the founders lost their fortunes, and even their lives, in the struggle, yet were ultimately vindicated.
Lawmakers in Connecticut have already threatened current gun owners with confiscation in accordance with the new regulation requirements. And despite a fraction of state gun owners deciding to comply with intrusive registration requirements, the Governor has accelerated his anti-gun rhetoric. (Colorado voters decided to hold recall elections… Connecticut gun owners have decided to take the Barack Obama approach: Ignore inconvenient laws.) Letters have been sent to “known gun owners” demanding registration, or the surrender of their “assault weapons”. The birth place of the Constitution, it turns out, is still home to armed students of human liberty.
Despite the strong rhetoric, and threatened legal action, citizens have remained stunningly unphased by the authoritarian nature of Connecticut’s gun registration scheme. In fact, Connecticut Carry (a decidedly pro-Second Amendment group) has even gone so far as to challenge the state to go door-to-door: Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision:
Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.The gun grabbing legislature and the Governor's office in Connecticut have forgotten the basic rules for making sound laws: if you want the people to comply, they must first agree to the laws. Mike Vanderboegh explains it better than I have in this video. In this case, the people affected, gun owners, did not agree. The gun grabbers were operating on the premise that each owner of a banned gun would feel isolated and alone, and would not risk the personal loss of family and fortune that a Class D felony would entail by resisting the law. But something happened the gun grabbers did not expect. One of their own, Al Gore, invented something called the Internet, which allows like minded people to communicate with each other over vast distances, compare notes, and devise strategy. Then, another one of their own, Barack Obama, decided that the law doesn't matter. As President, he has flouted the law, or changed it to suit his purposes, at will. Unfortunately, when a sitting President does such things, it sends the signal that law doesn't mean much. It empowers the People to define those laws they will choose to obey, and those they will choose to ignore also. By choosing to obey only those laws that are convenient or expedient, or worse, choosing to outright flout the law as written by the legislature, the President has created a state of lawlessness, in which any citizen can be brought before the courts at any time he or she becomes troublesome, and put in jail or worse. Some courts have been so anxious to serve an agenda that their court rooms have become little more than kangaroo courts rubber stamping the tyrants line. Meanwhile, gun owners who are defying the Connecticut law are obeying the Constitution-the highest law in the land. Thus, gun owners, not the State, are standing on the moral high ground in this case.