Should You Bring Your AR-15 to a State Where It is Banned?
The debate over gun rights is a contentious one, particularly when moving to a state with more restrictive firearm regulations. Are you willing to sacrifice your Second Amendment rights and bring your AR-15 to a state where it is prohibited? The question arises: why would one move to such a state with restrictive gun laws?
As of this writing, there are nearly 30 states that are considered very gun-friendly. In many of these states, you don't even need a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm. Approximately 59% of the states in the Union boast such permissive gun laws. It raises the question: can you really find no place to live and work in the remaining 41% of the country?
On the other hand, one might argue that the absence of constitutional carry laws in states like California, Illinois, and New York does not justify moving there just to own an AR-15. If you own an AR-15, would you bring it to a state where it is banned?
Some might argue that they would simply bring their AR-15 anyway, as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments would protect them. This stance is based on the belief that by openly defying such laws, they weaken the power of the state. Indeed, mass non-compliance has the potential to force policymakers to reconsider their laws. As history has shown, mass non-compliance played a crucial role in establishing the United States of America.
However, a more responsible approach might be to sell the firearm before moving. If it is that important to you, you might reconsider the move itself, even if it means rejecting a better job offer or other opportunities you have been presented with. If ownership of an AR-15 is viewed as a drastic step, especially at an advanced age, it might be prudent to sell it rather than risk legal issues.
On the flip side, some individuals take a more extreme stance, suggesting that they would deliberately put themselves at risk and move to states with unenforceable laws. For instance, they might consider themselves a 'harmed' person to seek legal redress. However, this approach is fraught with risks and potential negative consequences.
Civil disobedience is a method by which individuals can challenge and ultimately nullify such laws. By not complying, individuals assert their rights and demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the current legal landscape. Simply by not registering, altering, or turning in firearms, one can challenge the power of lawmakers. This was demonstrated in some parts of the United States with their AR-15 ban.
For example, the author lived in California for a decade after the AR-15 ban came into effect. They kept several firearms in a safe, including six AR-15s, an AUG, M1A, Galil, and ARM HK G3 and SP89 IMI UZI A model, a Benelli M3, and an open bolt Ingram. They also had a Bulgarian AK for 'serious social purposes' and a Glock 20 in the glove compartment. The author acknowledges the significant risk involved but also the potential for civil disobedience to be effective.
Despite the risks, the author questions whether they would do it again, given the compelling reason to live in California in 2020, which they chose to uphold. The Tavor 7 brought to California highlights the author's willingness to take risks for their beliefs.
Ultimately, the decision to bring an AR-15 to a state where it is banned is a deeply personal one that balances individual liberty with the potential for civil disobedience. Whether one decides to bring it, sell it, or find an alternative solution, the choice is a significant one that can have far-reaching implications for both the individual and the broader social landscape.