To Comply with the Law–or not!

There is a small shop alongside Hwy. 93 in Lolo, MT, which has a sign posted with this message. “Slow cars to the right. It’s the law!” It has not changed in a long time. Evidently someone has a problem with vehicles in the left lane which might slow him down a little. Considering the traffic accidents which occur in that area, slowing down a little wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Daisy Luther has recently posted an article on her website, The Organic Prepper, which claims that the state of Virginia is considering passing comprehensive “gun control” bills and entertaining the possibility of calling out the National Guard to force local communities to cooperate with the state in enforcing them. The result of this is that a vast majority of counties in the state have either declared themselves “gun sanctuaries” or are leaning toward that status. Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner [concerning] local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”

Apparently, the potential of such blatant disregard of the LAW is not to be tolerated.

In Nazi Germany, citizens were ordered to report and identify any persons they knew to be Jewish. It didn’t matter that they also knew what would happen to such people. It was the LAW!

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order declaring that every person in America who physically held gold currency or gold bullion had to relinquish it to the federal government. This action was expressly unconstitutional, but it didn’t matter—it was the LAW and thousands, perhaps millions of law-abiding citizens promptly broke their piggy banks in order to follow the law.

These instances could be multiplied many times over. The point I am trying to make is that once something has been legally codified into law, an extreme psychological, social pressure is placed on everyone to comply with it. Whether the law is morally right or not doesn’t matter, it is the law and, as a consequence everyone must submit to it—even if they get hurt in the process.

We should also consider one other situation which would have had world-wide implications if the LAW had actually succeeded in accomplishing its goal.

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.”–Matthew 2:16, NKJV

Over 2000 years ago, in order to eradicate any possible threat to his rule, Herod, the ruler of the province of Judea in the Roman Empire, ordered that all, that is ALL, male children under the age of two years in the city of Bethlehem and its suburbs, were to be immediately killed. This directive was carried out without mercy, causing untold anguish among the civilian population. However, due to a dream, Joseph, the father of Jesus, had earlier taken his wife and newborn baby out of the area and moved to Egypt, thus avoiding the slaughter.

Where would Christmas (or Christianity) be today if Joseph had not preemptively taken action to ‘disobey’ the law? What would have been the result if he had the idea that “the law is the law, therefore I must obey it?” What if he had given up his son to be destroyed simply because it was the LAW?

The answer, for anyone who wishes to see it, is obvious. What should be just as plain to see is that if a law, any law, is unjust it should be held in contempt. Or, as Martin Luther King put it,

“”One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

In all the above examples, only the first one has any sense of morality to it and that is because there is nothing right or wrong about driving in the left or right lane. It is just a rule of the road. All the other laws can be seen as morally wrong and hurtful to innocent persons. Whether it is the State breaking your door down to take your guns or breaking your door down to kill your newborn son is irrelevant—it is wrong and because of this, it needs to be resisted.

Ultimately, everyone must determine for himself which laws can be followed and which ones must be rejected. There is no hard and fast method for making this decision. It must come from what you know, what you believe to be true and right, and how far you will go to hold to your beliefs.

Choose wisely.

Failure of Prohibition: A History and a Prediction

There have been times when government tried, but failed, to remove from society certain consumer products.

The Prohibition era began with the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919, outlawing all manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic products. Prohibition of such “crimes” began on January 17, 1920 and lasted until December 5th, 1933 when the 21st Amendment repealed the practice. It did not eliminate the consumption or demand for alcohol, however, but only drove the supply out of public sight. Numerous people, otherwise innocent, were prosecuted, fined, jailed, or simply killed outright as a consequence of this policy.

In April, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order outlawing private ownership of gold coins, bullion, and certificates. He prosecuted and punished a few people, using well-publicized methods, to ensure that everyone else got the message and relinquished their holdings. Ultimately, however, all that was accomplished was that privately held gold went underground. Eventually, in 1974, President Gerald R. Ford lifted the ban and allowed gold to circulate freely, as it has done since.

In the 1970’s, President Richard M. Nixon’s administration declared the ‘War on Drugs’ to eliminate all illicit drugs from private ownership and usage. Today, millions of people are in prisons and jails, not because they are criminals, but because they possessed and/or used certain items which the government had disallowed. Like alcohol and gold in the early part of the century, however, illegal drugs did not go out of existence. They simply went underground and disappeared from public view. Currently, marijuana is legal in some form or another in a majority of states throughout the country and will eventually be legal everywhere, probably regulated like alcohol is.

So it will be for guns if private ownership is outlawed, prohibited, or regulated in an extreme manner. Guns, like alcohol, gold and drugs, will not simply disappear from society, instead, they will be driven out of sight. People who own them will be vilified, prosecuted, jailed, and fined, perhaps even killed, not because they used those guns against others violently, but because they possessed an item the government decided they shouldn’t have. If gun control is ever seriously legislated, scores of millions of Americans will be forced to choose between giving up what they consider to be their rightfully owned property or run the risk of heavy-handed punishment, up to and including the loss of their lives and freedom.

Government can regulate any consumer item out of the visible, public market, but it cannot destroy the demand for it. There always will be a market for alcohol, gold, drugs, guns, and many other items, which people consider valuable. The demand for such items is private and individual and can only be eliminated by private, individual choice. It cannot be extirpated from society by collective will or force, but may only be suppressed for an indefinite period of time, during which the relevant demand will be met–illegally, undercover, and quite often, violently.