That's correct. To knowingly violate a law, especially one concerning a concealed firearm, is stupid. We're not talking about jaywalking here.
Even when that "law" is a 100% violation of the Constitution? It is our DUTY to disobey UnConstitutional "laws"... So, according to YOU, anyone who is doing their civic "Duty" to uphold/support the Constitution is stupid... got it, glad you made yourself clear on that.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." --Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SIZE=+1]16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:[/SIZE]
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson
American citizens and law officers don't need an attorney or a Supreme Court Justice to tell them what all this means. We can read it with our own eyes, and the meaning is crystal clear. Law officers have a duty to disobey orders that infringe our right to keep and bear arms, and citizens have a right and a patriotic duty to resist if they dishonor it.
The issue, in a sense, is absurd. Why should we have to convince law enforcement officers that their primary duty, their Supreme Order if you will, is to protect the Supreme Law of the Land, which supercedes lesser laws and orders? Why should we have to tell them that whenever there's an apparent conflict, the benefit of the doubt should always go to the Constitution? Enforcing unconstitutional gun laws is wrong and illegal. Of all people, it should be obvious to law enforcement officers that they should not break the law. They should be on our side on this issue, leading the charge to encourage other cops to leave these gun laws unenforced. Instead, we're told that law enforcement officers should stand the rank of our laws on its head, ignoring our most important law when lesser laws conflict with it.
So who's the extremist; the citizen who says it's an officer's duty to ignore orders that violate the right to self-defense, the sine qua non of the right to life itself? Or the cop who willingly follows orders he knows or should know are illegal, disarms decent citizens, and even kills those who resist?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
