There are several things to dislike about a planned march on Washington, D.C., in which gun owners will openly carry firearms. Primary among them is the fact that it's being organized by a 9/11 Truther. Secondary among them is that the last thing the gun rights movement needs right now is a messy incident on the footsteps of the Capitol. However, someone should explain to D.C.'s chief cop that the march is a textbook example of civil disobedience:
On NewsChannel 8's "NewsTalk With Bruce DePuyt" this morning, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that protesters with loaded firearms would be in violation of city laws and could be stopped from entering or face arrest if they do.
"There's a difference between civil disobedience, which I think this is being portrayed as, and actual violation of the law. There's two different things here. Civil disobedience, people come to D.C. to protest policies and government policy all the time—it's no problem. But when you cross into the District of Columbia with a firearm and you're not in compliance with the law, now you're talking about a criminal offense and there's going to be some action by police," she said.
So, to recap, a group of people is marching on Washington, D.C., to protest the city's law prohibiting the carrying of firearms and, in the course of the march, will carry firearms in breach of the law. This is civil disobedience. It is akin to illegally sitting at a segregated lunch counter or laying down in a roadway to protest D.C.'s lack of representation in Congress or trespassing on a Navy base to protest bombing on an island. When you break the law to protest an injustice or to fight for your rights, you are engaged in civil disobedience.
Marching in D.C. waving placards? That's not civil disobedience. That's just run-of-the-mill freedom of speech. (Unless, of course, there are other circumstances surrounding the event of course, such as denied permits. Then it could conceivably be an act of civil disobedience. But I don't think that's what Lanier was getting at.)
The larger issue here is the refusal to acknowledge that owning a gun is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I think this is what is confusing Lanier and others. She, and others like her, simply see it as a question of law: "When and where will we allow you to have a gun?" It's akin to the folks who would look at the lunch counter protests and think, "Well, why don't they just sit somewhere else? The law's the law." For the protesters, however, it's a question of rights—and it's a question they take quite seriously. Gun ownership is a right that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. All they want is for the city to respect that right, and they're willing to go to jail in order to expose to the public the injustice they perceive.
As I said: textbook civil disobedience. If someone could fill our police chief in on that fact, I'd appreciate it.