DCPD Chief – “Civil Disobedience” Doesn’t Mean What She Thinks it Means

I find it astounding that the Chief of Police for Washington D.C. doesn’t know the difference between civil disobedience and an old-fashioned protest. If this July 4th march over the Memorial Bridge by armed Americans goes down, Chief Lanier is going to learn quickly enough. Ha friggin’ ha. Meanwhile, Kokesh’s use of the word “if” in this audio clip indicates a potential climb-down. Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So protests are now considered civil disobedience? So who rewrote the constitution when I wasn’t looking?

    I kind of want this to go down so he can throw a fit and potentially stain his underwear.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Well, protest marches in defiance of local ordinance are in the same family as civil disobedience – in addition to being protests.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        That is true, I was thinking in terms of a regular protest and not the Kokesh march through D.C..

        I heard her mention permits in the video. I am not a fan of protest permits because they can be given or taken at the convenience of the government. The whole point in my opinion is they should not be able to be decided by the whims of the government. The point of the protest may be that it is not convenient for the government. Otherwise it is like MA where gun ownership is considered a privilege and can be revoked by your local law enforcement at any time.

        1. avatar tom rkba says:

          Permits indicate that there is no right to keep and bear arms in DC. Emily Miller chronicled the process by which she paid for her DC permit. It is designed to increase the cost of ownership and delay possession by months.

        2. avatar William says:

          INTO DC, not “through” DC.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        She explicitly stated that protesting was civil disobedience in her mind. Black and white clear.

  2. avatar Ensitue says:

    It’s a Trap!

    1. avatar Shawn says:

      Yes, star wars quote.

  3. avatar RepubAnon says:

    The difference between a protest and civil disobedience is whether your protest involves deliberately breaking a law as part of your protest. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus was civil disobedience. There was a law with which she disagreed because she thought it was wrong, and she deliberately broke that law. Calling it civil disobedience is merely characterizing the type of protest tactic being employed.

    Marching with fake guns is a protest – marching with loaded firearms on the nation’s capital in violation of laws which the protesters feel are wrong is classic civil disobedience. It’s like all the leftists that get themselves arrested at protests by conducting sit-ins in violation of the trespassing laws.

    Pop quiz: what if this same action was being proposed by a radical Muslim Imam as a protest against US foreign policy? Protest, civil disobedience – or armed rebellion against the elected government? You make the call.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      The problem being that, even if they’re simply peacefully arrested, those protesters will likely lose their guns for life.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Only if they commit a felony, which this ain’t. It’d take some proving, but proved it would be.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Ah, but they can easily manufacture a bullshit charge of “attempted assassination of political figures” or some such. Since it would be tried in the DC courts, it would breeze through.

        2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Hmmm.

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      It’s not armed rebellion unless they’re shooting.

    3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Then Obeyme would apologize to them.

  4. avatar Jeff O. says:

    Wow. Just wow.

    Also, please let this happen.

    1. avatar SGC says:

      Be careful what you wish for…this could turn into something the other side desperately needs to fan the flames of civilian disarmament…

      1. And that would only tip their hand much like all the grave dancing and bloody shirt waving they’ve already done.

        Everyone knows why the battle of Lexington and Concord happened. The hypocrisy of our country will be put on full display if this goes down.

  5. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    I see, when the left marches for homosexual rights its a good thing, when the right marches for a constitutionally guaranteed right its a bad thing. Hardly seems fair, hopefully we can tell them in 14 we don’t play that no mo, Randy

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      I’m not a very smart person, but if you march into the District of Columbia and if you are breaking the law by having loaded firearms, I would bet you will be spending some time in jail. Probably leave DC with a felony conviction at some future date, and yes, lose your rights to have guns. Of course, if DC laws say you can have loaded guns, everyone should be fine, but again, I would bet it’s a gun free zone.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      More precisely, for civil rights – and for civil rights.

      Absolute equivalency, except in the eye of a skewed and (un)screwed beholder.

      1. avatar Sivartius says:

        More accurately, for Constitutionally protected civil liberties vs. for special treatment.

        1. avatar rtempleton says:

          this is some idiot republican thinking here. Just because a right is not enumerated in a document written by slaveholders does not mean it’s not a right.

          Saying that gay marriage is “special treatment” is some offensive OFWG BS and if I have to vote for gun-rights crippling democrats because the alternative is to side with bible thumping conservatives, I’ll take the democrat.

    3. avatar SGC says:

      Last I checked, there is no law against being a homosexual in DC. However, if the DC has a law on its books that no loaded firearms are allowed…there’s your sign!

  6. avatar Jeff says:

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born…

    This kind of thing – and the prisoners or massacre it would produce – inches us closer to revolution and civil war. I don’t think the country is there yet. This won’t happen.

  7. avatar Skyler says:

    Wow, she has FOUR STARS! She must be important.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Standard protocol is that for each 20 point drop in IQ below 100, they get an additional star. So four stars means an IQ of 20.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Reminds me of the guy who wore a tuxedo to his vasectomy.
        “If I is gonna be impotent, I is gonna look impotent”

        1. avatar SGC says:

          She only gets the fifth star if DC goes to war with the protesters…;)

  8. avatar tfunk says:

    I, for one, actually hope this does not happen…at least not as a group marching together. It only takes one idiot, be it one of the marchers or one of the “official greeting party”, to turn this into a bloodbath. Unlike many of the gun-grabbers, I am not secretly hoping for an atrocity to occur to advance my cause.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      It could only work if it were very brief (no over nighters like the Bonus Army) and if there were tens of thousands attending. I doubt they can get that many, so this is bound to be a flop. Or worse.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        Not that I don’t wish them well and admire the sentiment, but I just don’t think it can end well at this point in our history.

  9. avatar SGC says:

    I admire the spirit and the sentiment behind this, but it’s just gonna turn out bad for both sides…

    The protesters are going to be portrayed as gun nuts at best, right wing extremist proto terrorists at worst. If the march as intended, and don’t get challenged, and don’t have a accidental or purposeful discharge that spawns a bloodbath, and everything goes perfect…it will be a nice gesture for our side, but no good press will come out of it. MSM will have a field day.

    DCPD is going to meet them on their side of the bridge with armored cars and SWAT units, which will put RF and crew into a tizzy about government overreaction (even though no one here would confront a thousand armed marchers with empty hands and a pretty please behave). And the government will further be portrayed as the gun grabbing fascist jack booted socialists they are.

    It’s a wash…

  10. avatar Jon says:

    What would happen if several thousand people show up? How would she deal with that many? As long as no one un-shoulders or un-holsters their firearms, it would be an interesting exercise. Just ignore their commands and continue to march, let them take us down one by one. I would do it myself but how could I trust that some moron (police and/or participant) doesn’t get itchy? It’s just not worth the risk.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    How about unloaded guns?
    She seems rather blase about the whole thing because they have their “rules of the game”. Those rules are in violation of the USC.

  12. avatar Don says:

    They should just say they are loaded and then not carry a single round of ammo among them. That way it would be very difficult for the police to try to slap them with a felony charge rather than a misdemeanor, but they’ll still come out and show people what a police state looks like.

  13. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    So the problem is the “loaded” aspect of the guns the marchers will be carrying? What if:
    Marcher 1, unloaded gun
    Marcher 2, ammo
    Marcher 3, unloaded gun
    Marcher 4, ammo, and so on. Problem solved. Protest carried out. Technically no laws broken.

  14. avatar tco says:

    You can have your civil disobedience, so long as you aren’t breaking the law. These are the idiots”in charge” of us, who will be allowed to keep their taxpayer provided arms in any circumstance.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email