What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[error]

It was lots of fun to simply write a letter and put the onus on THEM to comply with some BS law.  You want to tie up the system?  Just start requesting things from government offices that they are OBLIGATED to comply with.  When they don't they look bad for pissing all over the blind and crippled people.

I like to send FOIA requests to government agencies, when the opportunity arises.

The last time I did this, the State Department just gave up and put the document I was looking for on their Web site.

[Bald Eagle]

I just mailed letters to the BATFE and State police requesting that they send me enlarged-text or poster-sized forms to comply with requests made by customers, as per the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

It was lots of fun to simply write a letter and put the onus on THEM to comply with some BS law.  You want to tie up the system?  Just start requesting things from government offices that they are OBLIGATED to comply with.  When they don't they look bad for pissing all over the blind and crippled people.

So I just got a call from State Police letting me know that "they were working on it."


No word yet from BATFE...

[error]

The federal government is bigger. It'll take them a bit longer. After all, they're going to have to go buy a whole bunch of new equipment to print up those forms, since they can't use the equipment the government already has. It'll take two years to go through the procurement process, by which time the equipment they eventually buy will already be obsolete by the time it's delivered, but the price paid will be double what it was on the open market.

Then someone has to be hired to operate the equipment...

Yes, government really works like this.

[Search4Lancer]

So wait... according to the OP, I can carry a gun into a post office? Can someone link me to the law that says so?

Thanks

[KBCraig]

So wait... according to the OP, I can carry a gun into a post office? Can someone link me to the law that says so?

That's one of the most widely discussed/debated issues on gun forums.

The short answer is that 18 USC 930 prohibits firearms or other weapons in federal facilities (defined as "buildings where federal employees work"). There is a list of exceptions to the prohibition, which includes a catch-all "other lawful purposes".  But, the post office is specifically exempt from 18 USC 930. Instead, they have a Rule in the Code of Federal Regulations that says no guns in post office facilities. They recently amended the Rule to say that it applies on all PO property (including parking lots), "notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation".

The upside is that the penalty is a maximum $50 fine, and a maximum of 30 days in jail.

Here's a good explanation (by a lawyer):
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=96

[Dave Ridley]

i've updated this some over the last few months., the list up top

[S.Cochrane]

Disregard the "State", and educate others to likewise disregard it. That is the only viable option you have. "Civil disobedience", generally speaking, is roughly the equivalent of a box full of hungry, mewling kittens. Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.

The highest act of so-called "civil disobedience" is to cease thinking like a subject, and choose to live. The very term "civil" implies that you are subject to an authority not your own. Liberty is not a destination, but a path. Walk it, or don't, it's your choice.

If anyone desires liberty, the "State" must die. If the "State" is to die, it will not disappear due to your protestations, nor can you kill it with a bullet. The "State" is a concept which must be put to death in the mind, as it is in the mind that the "State" holds sway. Fear.

Choosing to actually live life is the ultimate in disobedience to authority. Live your life, and educate your family and anyone else willing to listen, to do the same.

[J’raxis 270145]

Disregard the "State", and educate others to likewise disregard it. That is the only viable option you have. "Civil disobedience", generally speaking, is roughly the equivalent of a box full of hungry, mewling kittens. Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.

The Free State Project was originally started by a minarchist, not anarchists, so a free State makes sense in that context. Additionally, in the U.S. context, state means a geographic region in addition to the State as anarchists mean the term. So even to anarchists, a free state is possible whereas a free State would not be.

[S.Cochrane]

Disregard the "State", and educate others to likewise disregard it. That is the only viable option you have. "Civil disobedience", generally speaking, is roughly the equivalent of a box full of hungry, mewling kittens. Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.

The Free State Project was originally started by a minarchist, not anarchists, so a free State makes sense in that context. Additionally, in the U.S. context, state means a geographic region in addition to the State as anarchists mean the term. So even to anarchists, a free state is possible whereas a free State would not be.

Negative. Read your history. In context, "State" means precicely what it has always meant. The "United States", if the very name of the thing doesn't sufficiently define its nature for you, is a theoretical union of independent entities, namely "States". Here's an utterly absurd concept for you to chew on, and that concept is "State's Rights". Is there a reason why it would be written that individual "States" have such prerogatives?

Obfuscations, however, are irrelevant. A "Free State" is still oxymoronic, and the founder still a misguided fool. Whether or not the various "States" have, over the course of a couple of centuries, retained control of their own internal affairs, or have abdicated or been forced to give up their authority to a higher authority, is irrelevant. To have a "free region", by your definition, would necessarily require secession and disolution of the "State" which controls that region. In the case of the "United States", it would necessarily involve the defeat of two "States", both the "State" and the illegal "contract" between the "State" and the governming body of the Union of "States".

Are you a man of vice?

[J’raxis 270145]

The Free State Project was originally started by a minarchist, not anarchists, so a free State makes sense in that context. Additionally, in the U.S. context, state means a geographic region in addition to the State as anarchists mean the term. So even to anarchists, a free state is possible whereas a free State would not be.

Negative. Read your history. In context, "State" means precicely what it has always meant. The "United States", if the very name of the thing doesn't sufficiently define its nature for you, is a theoretical union of independent entities, namely "States".

I know exactly what state means, historically, in the United States (or united States, as it was once called). If you read through my history of posts here, you'd know you didn't need to clarify this. My point was that the Free State Project is named as such because it's about concentrating liberation efforts on one of the geographical regions / political subdivisions of the United States, not trying to claim the State could ever be "free."

To have a "free region", by your definition, would necessarily require secession and disolution of the "State" which controls that region.

Indeed.

[srqrebel]

...Cease seeking to act disobedient towards the "State". You will fail. You can neither war against, nor improve the "State". I am not a "Free-State" member, because the terminology is a contradictory, oxymoronic concept. Whoever thought of the idea is a damned fool.

The highest act of so-called "civil disobedience" is to cease thinking like a subject, and choose to live. The very term "civil" implies that you are subject to an authority not your own. Liberty is not a destination, but a path. Walk it, or don't, it's your choice.

You bring up some valid points.  The type of activism that Lauren, Russell and others (including myself) embrace, is perhaps more accurately referred to as "asserting one's sovereignty", rather than "civil disobedience".

It was obvious to me from the start that the term "Free State" was an oxymoron of the highest order, yet someone else's gaffe did not stop me from participating.  So what if it the project has an irrational name?  It is one of the most promising efforts to date for establishing genuine individual freedom in our lifetime.

One of the greatest challenges to this spectacular movement is the fact that humans, especially freethinkers that are attracted to this movement, tend to be skeptical.  They want to see that the FSP can get their numbers up before they make a committment.  This is like refusing to put wood on a fire until it demonstrates a roaring flame.  If you are a friend of liberty and are already committed to moving to New Hampshire, taking a minute of your time to sign the FSP Statement of Intent is one of the most powerful things you can do to promote liberty, because each new signature helps overcome this challenge.

Of course, the choice is yours -- yet by refusing to take such a simple, yet powerful action for liberty when you already are planning to make the move, just because it is irrationally named, you are behaving no more rationally than the person who conceived the term "Free State".

[John Edward Mercier]

Couldn't the term 'Free State' mean a republic that has freed itself from Federal control?

[Russell Kanning]

lucky for us our movement is not defined or confined by the naysayers
we know our civil disobedience is understood by many people including the government thugs who tell us we put them in an "impossible situation". I use that term because of the connections to Thoreau and Gandhi. Since we are doing the same things, why not use the same terms?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Couldn't the term 'Free State' mean a republic that has freed itself from Federal control?

Yes. That was the original idea.  The FSP was not founded by Anarchists.

Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?

[Russell Kanning]

Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?

we took a vote .... and CD won
but the wording on the ballot might have been misleading