bdickens wrote:The CHL really just legalized something a lot of otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens were doing anyway.
Exactly the same defense used by immigration activists to justify the status of illegal aliens in the U.S. They are alleged to all be good people whose only crime is that of being here illegally.
I don't want to hijack the thread into a discussion of immigration, but I'm just trying to point out that when you use a relativist argument to justify breaking one law, you open yourself up to another's use of the same relativist argument against you to justify breaking some other law. I'm not making a judgement here.
I've carried illegally when I lived in California, particularly during the 1992 rioting in Los Angeles. I'm just saying that you have to be careful not to use that kind of justification on your own account if you don't want to hear it used by others for some other reason.
According the founders, we are a nation of laws which are hung on the framework of our Constitution. We are either law-breakers, or we are not. There really isn't any in-between. Therefore, we have to clarify
why we break laws when we do... ...and we
all do it at some point or other. Is there anyone here who has
never driven faster than the posted speed limit? Of course not. However, one can legitimately make the claim that he was not paying attention and didn't realize he was speeding. That doesn't deliver him from the consequences if he gets pulled over, but it
does say something about intent.
However, the decision to strap on a gun is extremely intentional. If one does it when it is illegal to do so, then one
intentionally breaks the law. Moral clarity demands an explanation. You may no longer at that point call yourself law-abiding, because you are manifestly breaking the law, and you are doing it intentionally. Thus, in my book, if carrying a gun is illegal for you, then it is quite legitimate to say, "my ancient common law right to self defense and to keep and bear arms trumps any laws of man;" or to say, "I am carrying a gun as an act of civil disobedience to protest the unconstitutionality of the current laws;" or something to that effect.
By the way, I agree with all the above sentiments. I'm just not going to tell people that I break the law, and then call myself law-abiding in the same breath as if my being "otherwise law-abiding" were a justification for breaking the law, because it isn't. There
ARE valid justifications, but that is not one of them, in my humble opinion.
Now I'm off to the gun show.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
