The American Revolution, while thought to be started because of "taxation without representation" was actually started following draconian gun-control measures instituted by the British on the Colonies - see my post about that here.
With a new round of draconian gun control measures being discussed and implemented, is a new round of civil disobedience possible? I appreciate that many non-gun-owners will say "of course not" and that gun-control advocates will scoff at the idea that the Second Amendment implies a need to protect the people from the state. Such views are based on your core ideology, or lack of one.
But, for those who believe in the right to bear arms as affored to citizens in both the US and Connecticut Constitutions (yes, Connecticut State Constitution Article 1, Section 15 provides an unambiguous "Right to bear arms for defense of self and state") they feel their backs are against the wall. Worse, many feel this is less about "guns" and more about "control" and about the difference between faith in the state and faith in one's self. As I have written elswhere, it is like "Gun-rights advocates are from Mars and gun-control advocates are from Venus".
So, in certain ways, civil disobedience has already started, thus far in a non-violent way. I hope it will stay that way but one can never tell what fevered emotions will bring. From personal experience, I can tell you that I have spoken to several officers in a couple of Fairfield Country town police departments and they have made it clear that they will not be accepting orders to forcible enforce gun control measures. As one door-kicker (SWAT) guy said "There is no way I am endangering a previously law-abiding gun owner, nor a member of my team, by kicking down his door to take away his 2-feature AR or his 30-round magazines". Is that "civil disobedience" by cop?
Paul Hsieh takes a look at this in the PJMedia piece quoted below. Worth a read and some serious consideration. Makes me wonder if Governor Malloy, Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, Representative Himes, our Hartford senators and representatives and CAGV/March for Change have considered what will happen if they pass laws that are ignored by wide swaths of heretofore law-abiding gun owners and/or law enforcement?
PJMedia article posted in its entirety:
Would New Gun Laws Spark Widespread Civil Disobedience?
Posted By Paul Hsieh On February 17, 2013 @ 12:00 am
In his State of the Union address, President Obama doubled down on his gun-control proposals, again demanding that Congress ban so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” This is not a surprise. What has been a surprise are the increasingly open calls for defiance from gun owners, state legislatures, and local law enforcement. If the president’s proposals become law, he may move the country into turbulent waters we haven’t seen in many years.
Gun control has long been a controversial issue in American politics. However, there are three aspects to this issue that make this more volatile than other hot topics such as taxes, foreign policy, or abortion:
1) The strongest advocates of each side hold fundamentally irreconcilable positions.
On one hand, committed gun-control advocates say: “No one should be allowed to own certain weapons.” On the other hand, equally committed gun-rights advocates say: “No way in hell are we giving up these weapons.”
2) Ordinary Americans have declared their willingness to disobey the law.
New York state has already passed laws similar to Obama’s proposals. Gun owners there are now organizing a campaign of open civil disobedience, daring state officials to “come and take ” their rifles. State officials already acknowledge that they will be unable to enforce the new law.
3) Local law enforcement officials and state governments have also vowed civil disobedience.
Over 280 sheriffs and eight state sheriffs’ associations  have vowed to protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights against new gun laws.
The Utah Sheriffs’ Association used unusually strong language :
We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.
Similarly, several state legislatures  are considering laws to stop federal officials from enforcing new gun laws within their jurisdictions, including Missouri, Wyoming, and North Dakota.
In the worst case, we could see clashes between armed law enforcement officials at different levels of government, each regarding themselves duty-bound to enforce their respective understandings of the Constitution. Wide swaths of the country would likely thumb their noses at the central authorities — and get away with it.
In addition to open civil disobedience, new technology also increases the capacity for quiet noncompliance, at least with respect to magazine capacity restrictions. 3D printing enthusiasts are already developing plans that allow people to create their own 30-round magazines at home . The designs are still rough, but will almost certainly improve when thousands of motivated hobbyists turn their minds to this challenge. Even if the government outlaws the dissemination of the design data and/or possession of such home-built magazines, an underground market will likely still thrive, just as there is already a thriving underground market in pirated software and music.
Once such unenforceable laws are on the books, there are serious negative consequences, including:
1) Selective enforcement
The federal authorities may try to make an example of a few high-profile cases, but that will probably anger the other gun owners more, rather than cow them. (For more on the problems of proliferation of laws which prosecutors can then selectively enforce, see this paper  by law professor Glenn Reynolds.)
2) Diversion of limited police resources from real crimes
This is just another example of Charles de Montesquieu’s adage: “Useless laws weaken necessary laws .”
3) Increasing contempt by otherwise honest citizens for the central government
As Reynolds noted in a separate USA Today piece, Americans are increasingly mistrustful of the government . New gun laws would worsen this problem.
No one can know exactly how this will play out. This will depend on how strongly the central authorities wish to enforce the law in the teeth of the defiance, and how committed gun-rights supporters are to sustained civil disobedience. If history is any guide, violence is not out of the question, even if cooler heads on both sides do not wish it. New gun laws could be the political equivalent of a spark thrown onto dry tinder.
According to Politico, gun control is the most divisive issue  separating the two major political parties. Passing the law would accelerate the already growing polarization of America.
During Obama’s first term, many on the Left who were frustrated by their inability to fully impose their political agendas repeatedly invoked the mantra that America was “ungovernable .” If the president’s gun-control proposals become law, they haven’t seen anything yet.
Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-gun-laws/
URLs in this post:
 come and take: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJ
 280 sheriffs and eight state sheriffs’ associations: http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/
 unusually strong language: http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_files/2nd%20Amendment%20Letter.pdf
 several state legislatures: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/some-states-try-to-repel-new-federal-gun-laws.html?_r=0
 create their own 30-round magazines at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/
 this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
 Useless laws weaken necessary laws: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Montesquieu#De_l.27Esprit_des_Lois_.281748.29_.5BThe_Spirit_of_the_Laws.5D
 increasingly mistrustful of the government: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/07/trust-in-government-column/1896205/
 the most divisive issue: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/guns-biggest-partisan-divide-poll-says-86897.html
 ungovernable: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/89912/
 L.A. Times: Violent Movies Don’t Cause Violence, but Guns Do: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/16/la-times-violent-movies-dont-cause-violence-but-guns-do/