Gun Control, Patriotism, and Civil Disobedience

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The State of California recently enacted a law which requires owners of semiautomatic weapons to register their guns with the State. But when the law went into effect, thousands of California gun owners, although risking a felony conviction, refused to comply with its requirements.

These gun owners were immediately showered with harsh criticism, not only from their public officials, but from their fellow citizens as well. The critics implied, among other things, that since the law had been passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, the gun owners, as members of society, had a duty to comply with its terms.

The controversy raised important issues concerning liberty, property, government, patriotism, and civil disobedience. As I have repeatedly emphasized, by adopting the welfare-state, planned-economy way of life, the American people of our time have rejected and abandoned the principles of individual freedom and limited government upon which our nation was founded. But they have also rejected and abandoned something of equal importance: the concept of patriotism which characterized America's Founding Fathers.

There have been two different notions of patriotism in American history. The one which characterizes the American people of the 20th century -- the one which is taught in our public schools -- is this: patriotism means the support of one's own government and the actions which the government takes on behalf of the citizenry. The idea is that since we live in a democratic society, the majority should have the political power to take any action it desires. And although those in the minority may not like the laws, they are duty-bound as "good" citizens to obey and support them.

The distinguishing characteristic of this type of patriotism is that the citizen does not make an independent, personal judgment of the rightness or wrongness of a law. Instead, he does what he has been taught to do since the first grade in his government schools: he places unwavering faith and trust in the judgment of his popularly-elected public officials.

The other concept of patriotism was the type which characterized the British colonists during the late 1700s. These individuals believed that patriotism meant a devotion to certain principles of rightness and morality. They believed that the good citizen had the duty to make an independent judgment as to whether or not his own government's laws violated these principles. And so, unlike their counterparts in America today, these individuals refused automatically to accept the legitimacy of the actions of their public officials.

Let us examine how dramatically the "real world" applications of these two concepts of patriotism differ.

In the late 1700s, the British colonists suffered under the same kind of oppressive regulations and taxes that present-day Americans endure. What was the reaction of the colonists to this regulatory and tax tyranny? They deliberately chose to ignore and disobey their government's regulations and tax acts. Smuggling and tax-evasion were the order of the day! And the more that their government tried to enforce the restrictions, the more it met with resistance and disobedience from the citizenry. Sometimes smugglers or tax evaders would be caught and brought to trial. The result? Despite conclusive evidence of guilt and the judges' instructions to convict, the defendants' fellow citizens on the juries regularly voted verdicts of acquittal. And civil disobedience was not limited to economic regulations and taxation. There was also widespread resistance to conscription, especially during the French and Indian Wars. Those who were conscripted deserted the army in large numbers. And those who had not been conscripted hid the deserters in their homes.

This was what it once meant to be a patriot --the devotion to a certain set of principles regarding rightness, morality, individualism, liberty, and property; and it meant a firm stand against one's own government when it violated these principles. If an American of today were magically transported back to colonial America of the late 1700s, he would immediately find himself at odds with the colonists who were resisting the tyranny of their government. How do we know this? By the way which Americans of today respond to what is a much more oppressive and tyrannical economic system -- with either meekness or, even worse, with ardent "flag-waving" support for the actions of their rulers.

And what is their attitude toward their fellow citizens who are caught violating the rules and regulations? Again, either meekness or fervent support of the rulers. After all, what was the reaction to the Internal Revenue Service's seizure of Willie Nelson's property? "I'll make a small donation but otherwise don't get me involved -- I don't want them coming after me!" And to the conviction of Michael Milken for violating economic regulations that were so ridiculous that even King George would have been embarrassed? "He got what's coming to him -- he shouldn't have made so much money anyway!" And to Leona Helmsley's conviction for having taken improper deductions on her income tax return? "She's obnoxious -- she should go to jail." The thought of rising to the defense of these victims of political tyranny is an anathema to the present-day American "patriot."

And what about jury trials involving economic crimes? Like the good, little citizens they have been taught to be in the public school system, American "patriots" dutifully comply with the judge's instructions to convict fellow citizens caught up in this regulatory and tax tyranny. Although they have the same power as their ancestors to disregard the judge's instructions and to acquit their fellow citizens, the thought of doing so is so repugnant to present-day "patriots" that they choose instead to do their "duty" and thereby become "patriotic" agents of their own government's tyranny.