"I hope it doesn't come down to 'resistance'."

From time to time, a well meaning, patriotically-inclined person attempts to sell us on the idea that "we can still restore our rights without it coming down to 'resistance'." This notion circulates throughout the gunowners' rights community with enough frequency that it deserves some attention.

The war being systematically waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already "come down to 'resistance'." Anywhere people break gun laws -- even if by mere passive non-compliance -- the resistance is well underway.

One recent news story conveys this fact extremely well. The Associated Press reported on August 19 that the number of Massachusetts gun licenses has "plummeted" from 1.5 Million to around 200,000. This change, reports AP, took place "in the four years since the state adopted one of the toughest gun control laws in the country."

Unless we are to believe that all 1.3 million expired-license gunowners left the state in the last fours years and took each of their firearms with them -- and that none moved into the state -- it's clear that there are some courageous gunowners standing their ground in Massachusetts. According to AP, "fines of between $500 and $5,000" are slated "for anyone caught with a gun and an expired license." That's quite a financial risk to bear, but the bigger risk is the possible felony conviction and subsequent loss of firearms rights that could go with "being caught."

To be very conservative, for the sake of discussion, let's say that a mere 10% of those 1.3 million gunowners who've let their gun "licenses" expire are still living in the state and are still in possession of at least one unlicensed firearm. That's 130,000 armed people who are daily thumbing their noses at this blatantly unconstitutional gun law. Surely at least 10% of that group are aware they are breaking the law. Simple logic tells us that this large and growing number of otherwise peaceable gunowners have not only been turned into criminals with the stroke of a pen, but they've been forced to see law enforcement officers as a danger and a threat to their very lives and liberties.

And that's just one gun law, in one state. While the Associated Press glossed over the issue and even seemed to suggest that the lack of compliance is a victory for gun control, a more honest assessment would call this "resistance" what it is: The Massachusetts Gun License Rebellion.

Other states have similar revolts underway, too. California, with its "assault weapons ban" and "mandatory registration requirement" laws -- each supported by the National Rifle Association's managers (See Link 1, Link 2) -- is but one more example. A quick comparison of the number of banned "assault weapons" known to have existed in the state before the ban -- 750,000 or so, according to sources in law enforcement and the media, but probably much higher -- compared with the number turned in (a handful) tells us plenty. At the very least, several thousand gunowners in California are defying gun control, gun controllers and law enforcement.

That's passive resistance, but it's still resistance -- a defiance that also carries with it an absolute threat of active (armed) resistance. Ponder this: In California, being caught with a banned "assault weapon" is a mandatory felony that carries with it the threat of 18 months in prison -- per offense. The folks who own 10 banned "assault weapons" in California -- they exist -- are risking a possible 15-year prison sentence for merely possessing inanimate objects. While we can agree that some of those people would submit to the California "justice" system if caught -- a system that openly and deceitfully declares that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms and thus provides no legal recourse -- we must also agree that at least some of these gunowners will not go quietly to the gulag. Would you?

But perhaps the biggest otherwise-lawful gunowner rebellion in America today can be seen where gun rights really get tested: bearing arms. In today's America, peaceable gunowners who wish to carry a firearm for self-defensive purposes have a very narrow, limited scope within which they can do so. In states that allow legal concealed carry, gunowners can submit to intrusive prior restraints on their basic human right of self-defense -- deep background checks, fingerprints, training requirements, costly fees and even mugshots, in some states -- and can then adhere to usually-restrictive guidelines on where, how and to what extent they can exercise their rights. And in the many states where concealed carry is still virtually banned to all but the elite and the connected, no amount of submission to such stringent requirements will earn you that "concealed weapons permit."

In states that "allow" concealed carry for people who submit to prior restraints, it's folly to believe that the only people carrying (bearing) firearms are people who've subjected themselves to such intrusions and have received government approval. And it's equally absurd to believe that nobody carries a firearm illegally in anti-concealed carry states like California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, etc. Peaceable gunowners do carry firearms "illegally" -- in every single state in this great nation other than (perhaps) Vermont, where the right to keep and bear arms is actually honored. (The term "illegally" is in quotes because the highest law of the land specifically enumerates that keeping and bearing arms is not only legal but beyond the reach of any law or lawmaker -- anyone who says otherwise is simply a history-ignorant dupe or a liar.) Many (probably most) of these lawbreaking, gunowning Americans have no desire whatsoever to harm another person or to criminally misuse their firearms in any way at all -- they simply prefer being tried by twelve to being carried by six.

However, at least some of these Americans are aware of the ramifications of being "caught" with their banned firearms or being "caught" bearing their firearms where the "law" says they cannot do so. Of the group knowingly and intentionally defying unconstitutional gun prohibitions, a certain percentage of them are unwilling to be beaten down with the felony that would land on their heads -- depending upon the state or city -- if they are "caught" exercising their rights. That in itself is a sobering thought, but its implication is much more dire: rather than have their lives ruined in "justice" systems that grossly violate people's individual right to keep and bear arms, the law of averages suggests that at least some of these people are likely to resist law enforcement officers, even if force is required to do so. And that's how the first American Revolution got started -- Redcoats came for colonists' firearms, and a shot was heard 'round the world.

So if you are among those who hopes "it doesn't come down to 'resistance'," your hopes have long been dashed on the jagged rocks of reality. With every new anti-gunowner law passed, the ranks of passive and active resisters swell. The mainstream anti-rights media may continue to pretend it's not happening, but that doesn't mean we should.

QUOTES TO REMEMBER It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. — HENRY GEORGE

rather than have their lives ruined in "justice" systems that grossly violate people's individual right to keep and bear arms, the law of averages suggests that at least some of these people are likely to resist law enforcement officers, even if force is required to do so. Any questions ?

I wonder if the cops in MA will decide to pay a visit to the formerly legal gun owners and see if they have either moved or divulged themselves of their firearms.

It never pays to tell the gov't you own guns.

The Massachusetts Gun License Rebellion.

Outstanding. Massachusetts may have the worst, most unconstitutional gun laws in the nation, although California, Maryland and New Jersey are pretty bad, too.

I agree, passive resistance is very widespread. Much more so than the media would have you believe. The question remains as to what point does resistance go from passive to active?

As to Lysander's tax comment. I'd love to see the mandatory withholding done away with in paychecks. Make everyone cut that check to the government every two weeks. We'd have a tax revolution within a month.

Semper Fi

Absolutely right. That is why gun registration and owner licensing is such a priority with gun grabbers...obviously no crimes are prevented or solved by these stupid laws. Criminals don't register guns nor license themselves. So the only possible purpose for licensing and registration is to have an accurate database for collecting the guns later. I'd like to see any anti-gunner try to explain differently.

Bordered by Mass and NY ... where's a Ct. Citizen to go for a Sunday drive without becoming a felon ?
Answer, around the block and then back home.
Leo's need to understand passive resistence ends when un-constitutional enforcement begins.. ie.. emissions sticker checks...seatbelt checks .... and that the price can be expensive for their families. Never leave home without kissing your loved ones good-by.

About how far down does one have to bury metal before metal detectors don't? ;^)

"...and tax reform would happpen in a week...."

I agree.

And why should we need a license for anything in the Bill Of Rights?

I wonder how many people are running around with a weapon that violates the lame assault weapons ban and dont even know it. The gun has to have a certain number of US made parts yet it is not like you can open the thing up and tell where the parts came from. I'm sure the govt can though.

I thought about that and finally decided that there's no way they have the manpower to search everyone's yard. Besides the Rockies are just five miles away.

I love it when I read about someone who, while unlisenced and breaking the law by carrying a concealed weapon, was able to save a life by using it against some thug attempting to comit a crime. Ordinarily, if caught carrying a concealed weapon illegally the police would confiscate the gun, lock the individual up on felony charges, fine the person and restrict his right to ever again own a gun. But for some reason in such events as stopping a crime or saving a life, most DAs won't bother pressing charges because they know that no jury would ever convect the concealed carry law breaker, aka, the hero. I suppose that only the gun haters have the intellect to rationalize all the anti gun laws, especially in CA.

As to Lysander's tax comment. I'd love to see the mandatory withholding done away with in paychecks. Make everyone cut that check to the government every two weeks. We'd have a tax revolution within a month.

Remember the bill that Congressman Ron Paul (R) TX proposed? It was to end automatic withholding and taxes are paid monthly. I wrote my worthless Congressman, Mike Honda, to support Ron Paul's bill. No answer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.