Truly free men do not have to observe any law which is not legitimate under the powers granted to the government by free men. Since none of us actually signed the constitution, we are deemed to have signed it and entered into the social compact, however, every time we avail ourselves of the benefits that it offers and when we participate in government by voting. That notwithstanding, any law which is repugnant to the constitution is still just that, an unconstitutional law, and is void.
Sovereign, free citizens are entitled to ignore illegitimate laws or rulings passed and enforced by those who ignore their oaths to the constitution. To do so is not to start a revolution. It's called resisting tyranny. If a war were to result, it would be because the government was declaring war on it's master, the people.
A free man who ignores a federal gun law without harming anyone else is simply exercising his right as a free man. He may, as a result, be tyrannized, imprisoned or killed, but he will die a free man, not a subject.
On the other hand, the SCOTUS ruling in the case of Gore trying to steal the election was correct. Had the Democrats ignored it, and resisted enforcement, they would have been starting a revolution. To put them down would be an exercise of the legitimate authority given the government by the people.
Yes, but the Constitution to which we are presumed to be bound sets up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of when a law is unconstitutional, and when it is not. You choose to ignore that designation.
It is inevitable that reasonable people will have good faith disagreements over the meaning of a particular provision of the Constitution. Or over federal laws. And it is logical and rational for people to set up a court system to resolve those disputes.
You apparently want to pitch all that out the window. If you disagree with a court opinion, then you feel free to disregard that opinion. "I think its unconstitutional, whatver that Court says. So I ignore it." And you could easily extend your argument to decisions of lower courts. Again, ignoring any decision with which you disagree. It is impossible to have any ordered society under that scheme.
The worst part is that you want to do that on a case by case basis. If the system becomes so corrupted that the Courts are abdicating their responsibility and enforcing tyranny, then you have a revolution and start over. That is legitimate. But you don't want that. You want to be free to pick and choose which Court decisions you will follow. Of course, you don't expect that of others. Even if Dems think Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, they should still follow it. Why? Because you think it is correct.