Skip to main content

The Slippery Slope: When Good Intentions Erode Government Authority

By Matthew Hayward

The Slippery Slope: When Government Overreach Erodes Its Own Authority

Introduction

Governance and citizenry balance delicately on mutual understanding, trust, and respect. The bedrock of this pact? The expectation that government safeguards citizens' rights and freedoms. Yet, this trust erodes when governmental actions undermine their own authority—a specter haunting my experiences with escalating firearms laws in Washington State.

Background: The Gradual Tightening of the Noose

Federal laws have long existed in a state of forced compromise to my principles, not allowing me to purchase a suppressor or automatic weapon without an additional fee and registration. Similarly, Washington State laws compelled me to pay for permission to carry a firearm in a concealed manner.

However, Washington State disrupted the equilibrium between personal freedom and government regulation in 2014, introducing transfer fees on firearms, effectively creating a registry of gun owners. Despite my unease about firearms restrictions, I complied—this was one of the last compromises I was willing to make.

The 2014 law was a watershed moment. It cornered me into a position where legal firearm purchases became tantamount to the abandonment of my principles. Confronted with this, I chose my convictions over convenience, letting opportunities to acquire firearms pass by in favor of principle over registration. However, I was not 'yet' prepared to break the law.

The Onslaught of Restrictions

Post-2014, Washington State enacted a series of restrictive laws, each one a blow to rights enshrined in our State Constitution:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." Article 1, Section 24

Notable measures include:

Citizens' Response: From Silent Acceptance to Open Defiance

The relentless erosion of gun rights has triggered a spectrum of reactions. Austin Harlan, the owner of The Range in Yakima, noted a rush to purchase firearms ahead of the incoming legislation. This uptick not only reveals an escalating unease over diminishing rights but ironically undermines the intended effects of the legislation itself.

Yet, a more disturbing reaction takes shape: open defiance. An endless barrage of regulations has pushed some citizens, including myself, to disregard the State's authority. This chilling shift erodes respect for the rule of law and threatens to spawn a new class of dissenters.

The Unseen Cost of Overreach

Government overreach doesn't merely risk its own legitimacy; it threatens societal stability. When citizens begin to openly disregard laws, tensions rise, putting law enforcement in a quandary—particularly when these citizens are armed and resolute.

Final Thoughts

As lawmakers aim to reduce gun violence, they must ponder a poignant paradox: are they driving citizens to defend their rights with the very firearms they seek to regulate? Restoring trust calls for open dialogue, a reassessment of individual rights versus public safety, and unwavering respect for constitutional rights.

Even when well-intentioned, government overreach bears a steep cost: the erosion of faith and trust in the institution. We can ill afford this price, as it fractures the foundation of our society. We must find our way back from this brink, lest we plunge into the abyss.


"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law" The Law By Frederic Bastiat.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Grassroots Revolt Against GOP Elitism

By Matthew Hayward In the complex arena of political strategy, even those who occupy the highest echelons of power can falter, demonstrating a profound disconnect between their strategic intentions and operational execution. The recent failure to secure the endorsement for their preferred candidate, Dave Reichert, is not merely a setback; it is a revealing exposé of the grave strategic missteps at the heart of the Republican party's establishment in Washington State. These seasoned campaigners, these stewards of conservative strategy, have evidently underestimated the critical importance of grassroots engagement. While I acknowledge the logic behind promoting an established politician strategically positioned geographically and perceived as moderate in our swing state—a strategy driven by considerations of electability, which admittedly has its merits—the incessant focus on this argument and complete lack of any meaningful engagement and education has alienated the grassroots yet a...

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When the Census Goes Beyond the Constitution

 By Matthew Hayward The Census: From Counting People to Collecting Control The Constitution established the census as a straightforward tool for representation—nothing more, nothing less. Article I, Section 2 mandates an enumeration every ten years to determine how many representatives each state is allotted. That’s it. Simple. Effective. Proportional representation was the goal, and the census was designed to achieve it. So how did we end up here—with government agents asking about the number of bathrooms in our homes, our ethnic identities, and everything in between? This is the creeping hand of central planning at work. What began as a tool to empower individual representation has been twisted into a mechanism to empower bureaucrats, planners, and those who believe they know better than free individuals how to run their own lives. Central Planning: The False Promise of Data The justification for prying into the most intimate details of our lives is always the same: “We need the ...