SayUncle points out that Wyoming is telling the feds to go to hell in regards to a lot of their less-than-civil-rights-respecting laws. Montana did a similar action with federal gun laws. These are largely symbolic gestures, because despite all this, Montana and Wyoming are still committed to being a functioning part of the United States.
But what if they weren’t? What if the federal government crossed the Rubicon of gun control? We often like to think that the federal government will meet mass resistance should the “knock on the door” ever come, but they probably won’t. Lone individual action will not be how an onerous federal gun measure will be successfully resisted. No doubt some individuals will try, with the end result being those individuals end up dead, possibly along with their families. I don’t think the answer to the “Crossed Rubicon” problem lies in relying on that possibility. The knock won’t likely come from men in jack boots, disarming people to ship them off in cattle cars and toss them into ovens. It’ll come from a happy, smiling government that wants to take care of everybody, and surely you don’t need guns in such a happy utopia.
Most non-sociopathic human beings have powerful mental programming that prevents them from going against the tribe. It’s easy to say “I’ll shoot any son of a bitch that comes for my guns.” from the comfort of a lounge or living room. It’s quite another thing to actually do it; to put a fellow countryman in the cross hairs, one that’s likely to represent a government that looks more like Sweden than 1930s Germany, and actually pull the trigger. It is not something the vast majority of law abiding people are capable of doing. I have no doubt some will, but the numbers will be very small, too small to make any difference in the end. Such action will likely strengthen the resolve of those who want to bring us paradise.
Whether we realize it or not, Wyoming and Montana are showing us how it could be done, effectively done. They key to resisting an unconstitutional federal government is state action, but something more than mere symbolic action. What if, for instance, Montana declared that federal gun control was invalid and unconstitutional, and threatened to arrest any federal agent who entered Montana to enforce it? How far would the federal government be willing to press Montana? What are other Americans willing to sacrifice in order to impose gun control on states that don’t want it? In this hypothetical scenario, Montana would have to be deadly serious about enforcing their edicts. Attempts by the federal government to impose control over the situation would need to be met with quite real threats of secession, along with the attendant violence that could go along with such an audacious move. Montana would essentially be asking the nation a very serious question “Are you so intent on gun control that you’re willing to risk the cohesion and integrity of the United States, and to risk violence against the citizens of several of our states to enforce it?” Unless Americans change greatly, the answer to that is probably going to be no, and it would offer a peaceful way for the federal government to retreat back across the Rubicon.
This scenario offers three very important things — It offers people, who want to resist, the legitimacy of a functioning, lawful government to rally around, as an alternative to dying in a desperate, lone action. It offers a means of collective confrontation with the federal government that wouldn’t have to turn violent except as a final resort, and finally it offers an opportunity for the proponents of gun control to back down from the brink.
The question second amendment advocates need to be thinking about isn’t “Where’s the line in the sand where I start shooting.” but “Where’s my line in the sand where I start lobbying my state government to stand up to this crap?” We have to keep the spirit of defiance alive in our state cultures. Secession has a lot of negative connotations to many people, since the last time we did it, it was in defense of slavery, but its possibility a critical aspect in the balance of power between the federal and state governments. It is the ultimate trump card, one that must be played with utmost care, but it must be kept in play. That’s tough in an age where all the states suckle at the federal teat, but if we’re to remain under a federal government limited by the a constitution, more states have to start acting like Montana and Wyoming, and be willing to tell the federal government to go to hell, with all the terrible consequences that statement could have if they were to one day be serious about it.
