Peaceful Civil Disobedience and an Open Carry March on Washington DC

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Ok,

I will up front admit to being totally new to the Peaceful Civil Disobedience movement. However, lately I've greatly enjoyed watching The Ridley Report on YouTube and I wondered about something. I'm going to assume that the Assault Rifle Ban will be reauthorized:

Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008
6/12/2008--Introduced.
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to reinstate, for 10 years, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act's assault weapons ban to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Specifies models and features of banned weapons. Sets forth exceptions to such ban, including:
(1) firearms or devices lawfully possessed under federal law on the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) certain firearms, replicas, or duplicates listed in an appendix as they were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
(3) any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action and that has been rendered permanently inoperable or that is an antique firearm;
(4) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;
(5) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and
(6) firearms manufactured for, transferred to, or possessed by a federal, state, or local government agency or for law enforcement.
Requires the serial number of any weapon or device manufactured after enactment of this Act to clearly show the date of manufacture.
Directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the effects of this Act on violent and drug trafficking crime.

What this means in general? AR-15's are banned. The Remington 12-gauge 870 20" shotgun with high capacity (8 shot) is banned. Any pistol with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds (maybe even less). The M1 Garand is banned (goodbye new WWII American reenactors).

The best solution is to have the bill defeated. However, I find it unlikely that with Congress becoming Filibuster Proof that such a measure will be defeated. It most certainly be signed into law, again. This despite the wording of both Miller and Heller that make such laws patently unConstitutional (Miller says the Government can only regulate non-Military weapons and Heller includes language for 'all commonly used firearms' being outside government purview). So, what choice does that leave gun owners in America?

Why not an Open Carry (and I mean more than just pistols, but also 'assault rifles', 'shotguns' and the like) March on Washington D.C.? I realise there is a greatly increased chance of the potential for violence. However, if the March were to include several THOUSAND protestors, all armed, would the DC Cops, Secret Service or whomever really want to escalate the situation? Would the government be that incredibly stupid to push a mob of armed peaceful protestors to the point they defended themselves with force? Even if protestors are breaking the law by open carrying, isn't such a law automatically invalid since the 2nd Amendment contains no caveats?

If such a march were to occur, remain peaceful or at remain least non-violent act of civil disobedience, would Congress go ahead and authorize such a Ban?

[Kevin Freeheart]

If such a march were to occur, remain peaceful or at remain least non-violent act of civil disobedience, would Congress go ahead and authorize such a Ban?

I'm a quite sure that an event that you're envisioning will not end peacefully. Firstly, a large number of gun owners in the area make a note that they're 'law abiding'. Secondly, I drive through DC every now and then (if traffic is bad on that damn stretch between US-1 and the GW Parkway on-ramp I end up missing my exit) and I don't know the laws on open carry. I'm quite sure it's still illegal. I care about guns laws and I don't know the answer to that - are you sure that the police (all of them?) will act with the same restraint?

Ever seen video of how police shootouts start? Ever noticed that when cops start shooting, other cops usually join in?

Do you think every gun owner, under fire, will stay peaceful? Police shoot people all the time. Seldomly do those people shoot back. As long as the police have their veil of legitimacy, I think civil disobedience and guns are a BAD mix.

[YixilTesiphon]

This would be awesome, but it would end in a pitched battle.

[Russell Griswold]

Pie? Did someone mention pie?

[Taors]

Pie? Did someone mention pie?

Oooh! Hair pie! HAIR PIE!

[error]

There will come a time, if this bill is reintroduced, when marching on Washington may be useful. But at the same time, only if the guns are left at home.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

There will come a time, if this bill is reintroduced, when marching on Washington may be useful. But at the same time, only if the guns are left at home.

Not that I don't agree in principle that marching without carrying firearms would normally be prudent (and I realise this may come off as more reactionary than intended), but why would the government even deign to take us seriously if we did not openly carry? As I said, if (and really only if) there are THOUSANDS of armed protestors peacefully assembled in the capital, are the cops and/or military really gonna try something? While I realise the Media isn't our friend and there are leftist douchebags that would cheer if we got our skulls cracked, wouldn't it still be the equivalent of touching the third rail to do something so patently stupid as to try and arrest and/or disarm a crowd of armed protestors? The amount of spare political capital the Democrats and (surely) their RINO allies hoard would evapourate overnight. Can you imagine Main Street's reaction to Obama and/or Congress ordering the crowd to be forcefully dispersed?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

There will come a time, if this bill is reintroduced, when marching on Washington may be useful. But at the same time, only if the guns are left at home.

Not that I don't agree in principle that marching without carrying firearms would normally be prudent (and I realise this may come off as more reactionary than intended), but why would the government even deign to take us seriously if we did not openly carry? As I said, if (and really only if) there are THOUSANDS of armed protestors peacefully assembled in the capital, are the cops and/or military really gonna try something? While I realise the Media isn't our friend and there are leftist douchebags that would cheer if we got our skulls cracked, wouldn't it still be the equivalent of touching the third rail to do something so patently stupid as to try and arrest and/or disarm a crowd of armed protestors? The amount of spare political capital the Democrats and (surely) their RINO allies hoard would evapourate overnight. Can you imagine Main Street's reaction to Obama and/or Congress ordering the crowd to be forcefully dispersed?

Yes I think they would.  Think they're afraid of ordering their own Tianamen Square?  Especially considering the crowd will be heavily armed "anti-government right wing extremist militants"?  Seems like a surefire way to get mowed down by tanks.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Yes I think they would. Think they're afraid of ordering their own Tianamen Square? Especially considering the crowd will be heavily armed "anti-government right wing extremist militants"?

 

Yes, I think they're terrified of it. I think they want gun right's advocates to stay dispersed and shut-off from any form of media. I think they want more situations like Waco where they can mow down people far away from the glaring eyes of the public. Hiding and/or distorting a march in Wahington DC is going to be alot more difficult.

Seems like a surefire way to get mowed down by tanks.

Thats always a possibility. However, where do you draw the line in the sand? When do you say 'Enough is enough'?

[error]

There will come a time, if this bill is reintroduced, when marching on Washington may be useful. But at the same time, only if the guns are left at home.

Not that I don't agree in principle that marching without carrying firearms would normally be prudent (and I realise this may come off as more reactionary than intended), but why would the government even deign to take us seriously if we did not openly carry? As I said, if (and really only if) there are THOUSANDS of armed protestors peacefully assembled in the capital, are the cops and/or military really gonna try something? While I realise the Media isn't our friend and there are leftist douchebags that would cheer if we got our skulls cracked, wouldn't it still be the equivalent of touching the third rail to do something so patently stupid as to try and arrest and/or disarm a crowd of armed protestors? The amount of spare political capital the Democrats and (surely) their RINO allies hoard would evapourate overnight. Can you imagine Main Street's reaction to Obama and/or Congress ordering the crowd to be forcefully dispersed?

Yes, they would. They've done it before. Hell, they've killed unarmed protesters in D.C.

[minstor]

Oh yes they have!

Tour Washington DC
Hotel Washington DC

[frdmfghtr]

Just found this site through a google search for open carry peaceful protest on DC. I totally agree with this, and would be there right along side of you. I think we should plan it. but maybe start smaller, like maybe in State Capitols first, and then Nations capitol. If all other protests go without incident, the govnt would have much less ground to stand on if they were to open fire. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about any kind of restriction on firearm types, or weather a permit is needed or not. Just says that we have a right to keep and bear, end of story. Time is coming to stand up and say no more of this crap.