“We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”

The largest civil disobedience rally in American history just happened.
“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.” Attendees publicly transferred their guns to each other in violation of I-591’s background check provisions, and some even bought and sold guns just a few feet away from law enforcement. A fire pit blazed throughout the rally, and at the conclusion, gun owners lined up to burn their concealed weapons permits. A petition was circulated affirming gun owners’ refusal to follow I-594, which ended with, “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”

As the RSVPs in advance of the rally grew to over 6,000, the police – most who probably detest I-594 – decided not to enforce the law.
Gun control advocates need to understand that this is different from other issues. Immigration, free exercise of religion, all the rest of it: violations of those things can be solved later at the ballot box, or sometimes in court. When you demand that we surrender our arms, we understand that to mean that we will never again be able to set the violations right.

In the fantasy of gun control advocates, they'll just be able to order it done -- Second Amendment notwithstanding -- and their agents, the state, will enforce their rule. In practice, they should take on board that there is absolutely no guarantee that the police will enforce unconstitutional laws in the face of armed resistance. For one thing, a lot of the police are on our side. The sheriff's office that responded to the last mass shooting is on the record that they will not enforce unconstitutional orders to disarm the public. The Oath Keepers, which contains military, police, and veteran members have listed orders of this type as first among the sort they will regard as criminal and will not enforce. While it is unclear how many actual members they have, if a crisis came and they stood firm, many who sympathize would be forced to take a stand one way or the other.

How high do you suppose the percentage would get of servicemembers and police who reject such an unconstitutional order? I don't have any way to guess about the police. Among the military, though, it seems like a real probability that it could break fifty percent. More than forty percent of the military is Southern, where gun-rights sentiment runs strongest. Assuming that they broke 75/25 against the order, that would get you to better than thirty percent right there. If the right leaders -- and respected, retired leaders -- were to endorse the refusal as a violation of the military oath, it might get well above fifty percent.

Even if they didn't refuse to comply, but elected to "obey orders in the least likely way to bring about the intended result," there would be enough of them to foil the order. There's a reasonable chance that an order like this could provoke a genuine mutiny, because it would be so clearly a unilateral attempt to overwrite the Constitution by the will of a single political figure. If it didn't produce a refusal to obey orders, I might even say, it would be to the enduring shame of every one who took the military oath. Each one swears: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." What clearer example of a domestic enemy of the Constitution could you ask? What clearer example of tyranny? What does true faith and allegiance to the Constitution mean, if it does not mean refusing to participate in its violation?


MikeD said...

I honestly think they do not understand that they're playing with the one topic almost guaranteed to spark an armed revolution. Or one that they are almost guaranteed to lose. "What chance do rifles have against tanks and bombers?" Is the counter-refrain I normally hear. My pat response is, "ask the Syrian people." But even that ignores the fact that the US Military, by and large will NOT obey orders to open fire on civilians who refuse to surrender their Constitutional rights. I think it's far more likely any such order could result in the military actually arresting the government officials making that order. The absolute BEST I think they could hope for is the military staying completely out of it (as the Egyptian military did in their overthrow of Mubarek). But even then, gun owners outnumber every single soldier, sailor, Marine, airman, as well as every federal, state, and local law enforcement officer. Most of whom would ALSO (as we've just seen) not comply with such an order.

They'd not be playing with fire here, they'd be pissing on a live power transformer, and would get the shock of their lives for it.

raven said...

A little parable-
On the plain at Avebury, there is an ancient stone circle,much larger in diameter than the more noted one at Stonehenge. During the middle ages,local religious authorities spread the word these stones were demonic in nature,and and plans were made to overturn them. So the villagers gathered with levers and ropes, and the stones started to come down.
Modern excavation revealed a squashed skeleton under one of the upended stones, a man caught unaware by gravity. Apparently, efforts to overturn the demonic monoliths ceased at this point.

The essential misunderstanding the proponents of gun confiscation have, is that someone else (police, military) is going to do their fighting for them.

Eric Blair said...

This is the sort of "bottom up" activity I've been afraid of. Well not afraid for myself, but afraid for the Republic.

This, along with the disobedience in CT, and in NY, (by the cops no less) and that stand off in NV recently all point to a simmering that is close to boiling over.

Exactly how it would, I won't speculate on. I'm also less than sure that Army would not do what it's told--although I suspect that it would end up being the army fighting itself.

Nothing good to see here at all.

Ymar Sakar said...

The Left's strategic view and unified chain of command is more efficient at this operation, because while patriotic Americans have only underground support for refusing to obey orders, the Left has been purging the US military in preparation for future operations since 2008, if not before with the Left's sabotage of Iraq to produce more US fatalities.

The side that has prepared sooner and prepared the longest have the advantage and edge in war. While individual American families may have prepared starting even last century, their individual firepower does not lead directly to logistical or strategic advantage in a greater war.

Gringo said...

Confiscate guns from the low murder rate rural whites because of high murder rates in urban areas with a lot of blacks, with murder rate of blacks, both victims and perpetrators, is 7-8 times that of whites. Yep, makes a lot of sense.