Attorney and author Jeff Snyder is a writer I've learned from and admired. His "A Line in the Sand" and "A Nation of Cowards" are essential reading for anyone interested in grasping what it means to be a citizen who will not be pushed too far by those who presume authority over our lives and liberty.
So where is "too far"? His latest column, "Plastic People," tells us, at least for one brave man.
Pierre Lemieux, a French Canadian, economist, professor, author, libertarian thorn in the flesh of the Canadian Leviathan, and a friend, has become a felon. Pierre refused to answer one of the questions on his application to renew his firearms license, and the licensing center refused to renew his license. He now faces the prospect of 10 years in prison for keeping firearms without a license.
Why would he do that?
Pierre ran into his own personal limit with an impertinence in the license application that he simply could not abide, viz., question 6(d) of the license application, which asks:
"During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?"
But shouldn't the government know about traumatic life events? We're talking guns. What if the guy is despondent...dangerous...?
I'm not going to answer that here. Snyder does a much better job of educating someone who would earnestly ask that question than I could, and I want you to go over and read the entire essay. It's worth the 10 minutes it will take to discover (or rediscover) the persuasive and elegant power of reason and ethics that defines Snyder's work.
But I would like to take this opportunity to get you to ask yourself a few related questions.
For instance, if the government required you to register your guns, would you obey ?
If you felt it necessary to carry a gun for protection, would you? Even if permits to do so were only issued to the well-connected?
If a police official told you he could arrest you for asking a question of a public official at a public park during a public event advocating new citizen disarmament edicts, would you obey or defy him?
If you saw public officials intentionally violating the law, would you put them on notice that you could do the same thing against disarmament laws you don't support?
If warned by a federal marshal to watch your step because the ATF didn't like what you were saying about their activities, would you tell him to back off?
Perhaps you're not a person interested in the right to keep and bear arms. History has given us numerous examples of other kinds of righteous civil disobedience, starting with...uh...Civil Disobedience. You have read it, right?
I live in a town that was hub for Underground Railroad activity. Do you think the people who worked in defiance of the law to free slaves were wrong?
Would you disobey a law dictating you must use a certain restroom or water fountain, or sit in a certain section of a bus, because of your race?
Are there any other laws you would defy, because obeying them would require a betrayal of conscience and surrender of spirit you are not willing to make?
Are there laws you would be willing to actively resist? To what extent?
Or is that the way it is? Do we need to just work on electing representatives who will change bad laws, and in the mean time, be good citizens and obey?
And not "make the rest of us look bad"?
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Restaurant with anti-gun policy saved by a gun
- Austin: Swine flu and gun control
- Boston: Massachusetts SJC rules on dangerousness of gun possession
- Charlotte: New information on Patriot Act detention of Ashton Lundeby
- Cleveland: When it comes to armed robbery, comply and you might die
- DC: NATO doctrine in effect: open carry rights in Wisconsin under attack!
- Denver: Why liberals should get a gun permit
- Los Angeles: Gun Control: CCW denied in CA, litigation ensues.
- Milwaukee: Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn bullies gun owners
- Minneapolis: Are gun owners facing a ‘perfect storm’?
- Seattle: Public safety ‘crossroads’ in King County may reflect statewide, national problem on magnum scale
- St. Louis: Carrying a defensive firearm should not require surrendering one's privacy
- Wisconsin: Sheboygan County district attorney backs VanHollen
Comments
"An unjust law is no law at all"
--St Augustine of Hippo
(13 November 354 – 20 August 430)
I know where my lines in the sand lie but I won't advertise. ;-)
Lines, plural - a line for everything dear to me.
Let's meet up at the Old North Bridge.
Line, what line? Oh, that thing way back there we done passed?
I consider it my duty as a responsible citizen to obey every law until I have a reasonably complete understanding of the true purpose of that law and the ramifications for chosing to disobey it. Then as a thinking adult I make my choice, not for what is easy or least annoying for me, but for what is right and proper. And so some laws not only can be broken but for the sake of our freedoms must be broken.
Yes, there are laws that I would actively resist, and violate if need be. I won't advertise where my lines in the sand are either, but there are lines. Definitely. However, I will say that if I did violate said unjust laws, I would also do so HONESTLY and accept the fact that I could face the consequences in court if caught.
Have had the pleasure of calling my 'representatives' on their thievery and abuse under color of law...have refused to sit down and shut up when told my time was up...sued city hall (unfortunately an unproductive but sometimes exciting endeavor). As to anything else, well, cop didn't see it, I didn't do it, yet.
Whenever I meet one of those pussies of the persuasion that "Oh, we can't each pick and choose the laws we want to obey, we can only work very hard from within the system to change them," I reply, "So you think Rosa Parks should have just S-T-F-U and sat in the back of the bus?" Even more satisfying than a b**ch-slap.
Am I a law abiding gun owner? Hmmm, well, tell me what today's laws are and I'll stew on it.
I favor civil disobedience oil drilling on government property.
As arrogant as this is going to sound, I usually spot trends and see things well before most people do. I have been struggling with my propensity to be impatient. I too, have lines in the sand. I know they are going to be violated as some have already been, hence my struggle with impatience.
I would, if having no other option, act unilaterally. Hence, again, my struggle with impatience. Such action can and would be dismissed as the act or acts of a lunatic and would serve no useful purpose toward restoration of the republic. It would accomplish nothing for my children or grandchildren in the interests of liberty. Hence, my struggle with impatience.
I am trying to wait until such time as the dissatisfaction is so great in the public body that anything I might be able to do would have more beneficial results for the nation if part of a general movement of restoration, thus removing what any individual might do from the possible realm of relegation to the acts of lunatics that have no justification.
Having seen what is coming for several decades now, I am struggling mightily with impatience.
I told you, it sounded arrogant. I only wish it was.
Interesting. I too live in a town that was a hub for the underground railroad.
I think we all have our lines in the sand. Many of them have been crossed.
I understand the sentiment of keeping your particular line a secret, but operationally, we as a group need to put our heads together, and find a common line, then when we dig in to hold it, we won't do so alone. Eventually, everyone will see what's going on, but how many will have to stand alone and fall before we stand together?
I know this stuff is monitored, but I still think that there should be a mass concensus on where the line is.
My Opinion.
I think I'm standing next to Sean. And Straightarrow I too know the the feeling of impatience, and the fear of what the end of the waiting will bring. Still the sooner we start the sooner we finish.
A while back I read about how a group of Germans were armed and ready to take down Hitler. The only problem was that Hitler took all of them out before they could ever react. With everybody having their own "line", it doesn't seem like there will be any significant coordination, and coordinating will likely be impossible because communications will likely be shut down when all of us rebels are arrested. Individually, we don't stand a chance.
I get it and the line. I won't even tell a cashier my zip code when they ask at a retail store.
The Founders certainly understood the idea of resistance to a government gone too far. They employed a peaceful tool called jury nullification to assist in their resistance. To learn more, see www.juryduty.org.
Toward liberty and justice for all,
I for see the lines being crossed hitting a Intolerable point for many, and escalating.
Not for want but because they are pressed.
(Their life will depend on it)
Like a series of secondary explosions chasing after each one other to a main explosion.
The Humanist culture crossed My line after they Killed My Baby Daughter in Her mothers womb!Then Killed the witness who would prove it.
NO not abortion.
I have a score to settle with that heartless Rabble.......
I WILL Have them.
I have in the past and will in the future resist evil. Sometimes openly. Sometimes in secret. As to the references to the slavery issue: Remember. The pious northerners SOLD their slaves to the South first, when the industrial revolution made their use unprofitable in the North, then demanded they be "set free" after they were duly and fairly purchaced. Dozens of other countries peacefully disbanded the institution of slavery by the purchacing and freeing their slaves with public money. Our kindly government invaded sovern states against the constitution and murdered over 50,000 innocent civilians and cost the country over 750,000 lives using millions of foregin born troops to lay waste to half of the country.
Slavery was an evil that blighted the land, and was a dying institution that was being made useless by the industrial revolution, but the war was not fought to end slavery. The South didn't own slave ships, and the "Southern Cross" never flew over one. New England was the home of the slavers, not Richmond or Atlanta, but this is not something taught in history books is it?
Gray_Rider
'I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no
matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I
find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am
morally responsible for everything I do.'
Kinda says it all- yes?
Everyone, no matter how law abiding they feel they are, has lines in the sand. But, like any other relationship, you have to pick your battles and bide your time. You act when your argument will be best supported, as to have the best possible outcome, and when you have reached your line, you look for others with the same outlook to stand with you. But, it is still up to the individual to decide where your line is, and whether or not you are willing to move your line. Sometimes you need to move it, in order for the correct battle to be best planned with the most effective outcome, I don't consider that giving in or giving up, just changing your strategy on the battlefield, so as to win the war.
That being said, my line would not tolerate being moved if I were asked the initial question, I would have to pick that battle and fight it, win or lose. If I were held to that, I could never have had a gun in the first place, I was divorced at 25 and have had numerous life changes that to a less stable person, might have sent them over the edge (my ex could do it too) so if that were the criteria you had to adhere to, no one would be able to have a gun.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!