Laws/Unjust Laws

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I only get on sporadically so forgive me if this was addressed when the thread I will be refering to was originally closed.

http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?124780-If-Louisiana-adopted-Connecticut-s-gun-laws

The end post really kind threw me off and I only know a few people here so Im not point anything out or calling anybody out personally.

Austin's end post was "Not saying I disagree with anything stated above, but discussing breaking laws is not OK. Feel free to discuss this in the other threads as a political issue...but less the discussion about breaking laws."

And that is fine, he is prob just covering the forum's ass and whatnot but I just wanted to get on my soap box for a minute and remind you guys of a few quotes.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." -Marlin L King Jr

"It seems to me that an unjust law is no law at all." -Saint Augustine

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” -Marlin L King Jr

“It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.” -Aristotle

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law” -Henry David Thoreau

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” -Gandhi



I could post quotes for hours, but you guys/gals get the picture. These are ideas and thoughts that carved our history and helped bring us to this place in history. We have holidays named after some of these men, some are founders, some religious and the list goes on and on speaking about the same things and we can't opening talk about those things on this forum? Because its talking about breaking the law? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my entire life. I hope the mods in the future will weed out trash, not ideas or opinions. Thats pretty much all, hopefully didnt bore too many people.

 

[madwabbit]

Austins post is general practice on this forum, but in that particular thread I felt it was a bit much seeing as how it was all hypothetical.

Stating that I'd refuse to register isn't breaking the law, because it isn't currently the law.

That being said, this forum has a zero tolerance for posts regarding breaking any posted law, so some questions are best asked by PM. Once you learn who here knows what, it helps.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I understand its common practice and I tried to address that a little bit early on, just thought I needed to express that it is a silly common practice is all.

 

[madwabbit]

You know, arguing this from an educational and philosophical point of view really seems like it'd be valuable so I'll bite.

When liberals assault the second amendment, the politically correct answer is "then follow the process and propose an amendment to the constitution. if enough of the country agrees, it'll happen and become a constitutional amendment."

I'd propose a similar response to the theory of "disobeying unjust laws"; There is a process for that. If enough people feel that a specific law is unjust, organize and challenge it legally and get them removed from the books altogether. Our judicial and executive processes actually DO work, the problem is that most people would rather step around them (illegally) than confront and use them.

It's not unlike resisting an unlawful arrest. This is done by expressing that it is a false arrest, then telling the officer that you'll be going on your way. When he arrests you anyway, you dispute it in court. If your case is dismissed, then you win.. which presents the opportunity for a suit.

However, just telling the officer to F off and sprinting in some random direction gets you a much different outcome. You'll be tackled, tazed (paging JR), then tossed in a jail cell and charged with felony fleeing or resisting. Now you've lost a significant legal weight to dispute the original arrest because you presented yourself with new indisputable charges with which you could be legally arrested (fleeing/resisting).


Your ideas are the latter, and simply refusing to abide by or to socially oppose laws is not in anyone's best interest.

and fwiw many of those quotes are taken out of context when paired with the message of the entire speech given.

 

[oleheat]

Let's just keep putting representatives friendly to our views in that department in office, and we'll continue to be okay. We've accomplished a lot, here at home.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

That doesn't change the fact that laws are being created faster than they can be read, and its not always good people writing those laws. It works in a perfect world, but hell, communism works in a perfect bubble world. What would be different if MLK Jr would have taken the legal route? How much longer would it have taken to get things how they are today? Would we still be drinking out of different water fountains? I doubt it, but how much more oppression would have taken place? I think there is a time and place for everything, including disobedience. Is this the time for that? I don't know, I think it has to be a very calculated choice and I dont have the answer, but I still think it served a very important place in the past and Im sure the future as well.

 

[madwabbit]

MLK did take the legal route my friend. All of his "protests" were political in nature, and none of them violent by his disposition. He was met with great violence, and his triumph is what makes him a legendary pioneer of civil rights.

Montgomery bus boycott: proposed in 3 churches and notified to city council. when they refused, they organized and boycotted.

Selma March: days before the rally, MLK met with government officials to ensure the marchers would not be impeded and that this would be a peaceful political rally.

More often than not, he followed the legal route so that officers wouldn't assault or haze his protestors - in reality it gave him all the more legal standing to wage his war on civil rights.

I do understand your point of view, but I feel that you are arguing it in a manner gravely derogatory to your cause.

 

[killerkarl]

Didn't U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder just make a statement a few weeks ago telling state attorney generals that they didn't have to enforce laws that they believe are unconstitutional?

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I don't disagree, and I understand what you mean. Im not even totally arguing, like I said, I dont know the right or wrong answer to the problem, Im just not gonna throw the value of disobedience out the window just yet.

 

[madwabbit]

Didn't U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder just make a statement a few weeks ago telling state attorney generals that they didn't have to enforce laws that they believe are unconstitutional?

State vs Federal laws my friend. His statement was a blanket for colorado and washington states, because their states have enacted laws that are still federal offenses.

 

[madwabbit]

I don't disagree, and I understand what you mean. Im not even totally arguing, like I said, I dont know the right or wrong answer to the problem, Im just not gonna throw the value of disobedience out the window just yet.

disobedience is a last recourse after the legal attempts have all been attempted, and failed without running their full courses.

If you think concealed carry should be legal, get some signatures, some proposals, and head to baton rouge. Start the process. I promise you that in today's age- no matter what your cause, you'll find support. If it's something that the majority agrees with, you'll get a lot of support.

If its a strong majority- you may change laws, who knows.

 

[Emperor]

You know, arguing this from an educational and philosophical point of view really seems like it'd be valuable so I'll bite.

When liberals assault the second amendment, the politically correct answer is "then follow the process and propose an amendment to the constitution. if enough of the country agrees, it'll happen and become a constitutional amendment."

I'd propose a similar response to the theory of "disobeying unjust laws"; There is a process for that. If enough people feel that a specific law is unjust, organize and challenge it legally and get them removed from the books altogether. Our judicial and executive processes actually DO work, the problem is that most people would rather step around them (illegally) than confront and use them.

It's not unlike resisting an unlawful arrest. This is done by expressing that it is a false arrest, then telling the officer that you'll be going on your way. When he arrests you anyway, you dispute it in court. If your case is dismissed, then you win.. which presents the opportunity for a suit.

However, just telling the officer to F off and sprinting in some random direction gets you a much different outcome. You'll be tackled, tazed (paging JR), then tossed in a jail cell and charged with felony fleeing or resisting. Now you've lost a significant legal weight to dispute the original arrest because you presented yourself with new indisputable charges with which you could be legally arrested (fleeing/resisting).


Your ideas are the latter, and simply refusing to abide by or to socially oppose laws is not in anyone's best interest.

I would like the arresting officers to be more knowledgeable before just tossing me in handcuffs and letting me work it out in the courts!?! That is a huge inconvenience and could cost a person a **** load of money to litigate. And even then, the arrest itself will be recorded and unless you spend even more money, it will follow you!

I realize cops are just tired of people that act like moron's ********, and thus just want to diffuse certain situations; but just arresting all parties at a scene to let them sort it out in court is not the way I want it handled!

 

[madwabbit]

I would like the arresting officers to be more knowledgeable before just tossing me in handcuffs and letting me work it out in the courts!?! That is a huge inconvenience and could cost a person a **** load of money to litigate. And even then, the arrest itself will be recorded and unless you spend even more money, it will follow you!

I realize cops are just tired of people that act like moron's ********, and thus just want to diffuse certain situations; but just arresting all parties at a scene to let them sort it out in court is not the way I want it handled!

well, thats how it gets handled. because of the reason you stated (and i'll highlight). When 4 or 5 people fight the good fight and win suits against the city, they WILL change procedure and educate/terminate. Until people are willing to fight, nothing will change. Perfect example: most agencies have policies prohibiting high speed chases due to public endangerment. It took a few wrongful death suits, but now its against policy in many areas for officers to fly through your neighborhood at 100mph chasing someone for a bag of weed with a bench warrant for a traffic ticket. Unfortunately, what it really cost was a few of these chases ending in someone's child being killed or paralyzed.

While we are on the subject, false arrests are few and far between these days BECAUSE OF a litigious society, and modern technology.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

Be careful about the majority thing Wabbit, thats why we have a bill of rights to protect people from mob rule. We do not live in a Democracy.

 

[madwabbit]

Be careful about the majority thing Wabbit, thats why we have a bill of rights to protect people from mob rule. We do not live in a Democracy.

only on paper, anyway. ultimately we do have a democracy, and our total power lies in the people- however hidden and unused it may seem.

example: consider law enforcement discretion combined with jury nullification

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I dissagree, the RIGHTS of one person trumps the WILL/WANT of every other American. Rights should be solid and un-moveable...not saying that is the reality, just the intent.

 

[oleheat]

I dissagree, the RIGHTS of one person trumps the WILL/WANT of every other American. Rights should be solid and un-moveable...not saying that is the reality, just the intent.

I'd vote for you, Sir.

That's certainly how it should be.

 

[madwabbit]

I dissagree, the RIGHTS of one person trumps the WILL/WANT of every other American. Rights should be solid and un-moveable...not saying that is the reality, just the intent.

i agree 100%

again, on paper you are correct. literally by the way: I cite the Constitution as reference

 

[oppsImissed]

For anyone who cares. I posted that i would say that i lost it, sold it, whatever. There is no way in hell I would go to jail or die over a damn Gun. You want them? here ya go, thanks, have a good day. I understand the laws would be un just, blah blah blah. Anyone would would put his family in jeapordy to hang on to a few AR15's is nuts.

 

[AustinBR]

I understand its common practice and I tried to address that a little bit early on, just thought I needed to express that it is a silly common practice is all.

Civilly debating things is one thing. Discussing different ways to lie about owning guns is another. The whole "I lost it in a boating accident" thing is stupid. Discussions how people can / should "resist authority" in [insert hypothetical situation] is also stupid. It is perfectly OK to debate laws and way to change laws in a civil manner. What I mean by that is what is above is OK. Talking about how things can be improved is good. Talking about getting signatures for a cause is good. On the flipside, encouraging or discussing "Resist[ing] all authority when they come knocking" is not. Talking about how concealed means concealed is OK. Encouraging people to carry guns into places with signs specifically saying no guns is not. Sure, many of us will do it anyway, but discussing it is not good. Furthermore, if a legal case is ever brought against anyone here for whatever reason, I just don't see how talk of breaking laws could help in any way.

The idea is not to stifle discussion - it is to encourage /thoughtful/ discussion while preserving a civil atmosphere. Many people don't want to read others discussing how they will break (insert hypothetical law) because they disagree with it.

Does that clear things up?

For anyone who cares. I posted that i would say that i lost it, sold it, whatever. There is no way in hell I would go to jail or die over a damn Gun. You want them? here ya go, thanks, have a good day. I understand the laws would be un just, blah blah blah. Anyone would would put his family in jeapordy to hang on to a few AR15's is nuts.

Yes.