This is victim-blaming. Violating an unjust law is not blameworthy. Enforcing an unjust law is blameworthy.
I'll just have to disagree with you.
As a Christian I believe that the powers that be are ordained by God. I also believe in "2nd Amendment carry", which means that according to the 2nd Amendment, which shall not be infringed, I believe I have a Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon where ever and when ever I want without government approval. For the first 40 years of my life I was able to do that. BUT, I KNOW that under current laws, right or wrong, that if I carry a firearm, concealed or not, into a place of worship, a bank, courtroom, etc..., and I'm arrested, then I brought that trouble down on myself.
What about unjust laws? It is said that the Supreme Court power of judicial review is one barrier against unjust laws, but a person can lose all of their property, wealth and be imprisoned for years after being convicted of violating an unjust law, and even then there is no guarantee that the SCOTUS would agree to hear his case. The Dred Scott decision is an example of relying on the SCOTUS to correct an unjust law.
It is also said that the Jury is the most powerful force against unjust laws.
http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/550642/Jurors-can-protect-people-from-unjust-laws.html?nav=5008In the case of U.S. vs. Dougherty 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power - to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..."
Also in 1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said, "The jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts."
What all this means is that a single juror has the ability to nullify a law that they find unfair or unconstitutional by casting their vote of not guilty. If a juror feels that a law is contrary to their beliefs or infringes upon another's God-given rights, it is within their rights to refuse to convict the defendant even if they have technically broken the law. In a trial, the decision of the jury must be unanimous in order to convict a defendant. If just one juror refuses to vote guilty, then it is considered a hung jury and the case is dismissed.
But, that is fraught with frailties as well. Jury selection processes don't always end up selecting the most informed and schooled individuals in what is right and/or Constitutional. In fact, during the last 40 years the definition of "right" and the meaning of phrases in the Constitution have been undergoing a seismic shift in which day has become night, and wrong has become right. And even greater shifts are on the horizon. The video which showed a guy going around asking people to sign a petition that would repeal the 2nd Amendment showed in all of its horrific implications how little people knew of the Constitution or of the issues of gun control. And those people vote. They also set on juries.
So, when or if it is proven that he knowingly violated the current law regarding selling firearms to convicted felons, then he has asked for the troubles he is now in.
Otherwise, how can we make the claim that the proposed gun laws restrict freedoms of "law abiding" citizens like you and me if we willingly violate the current laws on the books?I can and am fighting against unjust laws to the best of my ability without breaking any laws.
