In the previous posting on this subject, we looked at the belief that you can decide for yourself whether to obey a law, good or bad, and whether such a decision excuses you from taking the penalties for breaking the law.
The issue was President Trump’s pardons for six people convicted of “fixing their own cars.” It turned out the heinous half-dozen weren’t just “fixing their own cars.” They were violating the Federal Clean Air Act by tampering with or selling “defeat devices” designed to bypass or disable federally mandated vehicle emissions controls. Doing it argues they knew what they were doing and that it was illegal; they were thus very likely fully aware it was not “an ordinary vehicle repair.”
Dorothy Day
Now, as we saw last week, just because you think a law is stupid or unfair does not mean you can break it as you please and expect to escape the consequences of your acts. Even so noted a human rights advocate, even anarchist, Dorothy Day actively accepted the punishments she incurred for breaking the law.
As a committed pacifist and civil rights advocate, Day engaged in numerous acts of civil disobedience throughout her life. She was arrested multiple times and — perhaps paradoxically for a self-described anarchist — willingly served her sentences. Suggesting she had more of a social conscience than anarchism usually signifies, she regarded the punishment itself as part of her witness and a sacrifice willingly undertaken.
Day also refused to resist arrest, even when the arresting officer was clearly reluctant to carry out his duty and might have been talked out of it — she didn’t want him to get in trouble and lose his job. She was always careful not to inflict harm on others, although her own hunger strikes suggest an inconsistency of sorts with respect to herself.
Not so tampering with a vehicle emissions system. Removing an emissions system (like a DPF, EGR, or catalytic converter) can cause major problems. It is not only a federal offense under the Clean Air Act punishable by heavy fines, it also instantly voids manufacturer warranties, and will cause the vehicle to fail inspections and produce harmful pollutants.
Mechanically, modifying these systems can ruin the air-fuel ratio, cause the engine to run dangerously hot (damaging components like turbos and pistons), and cause permanent check engine lights. While some claim removing or bypassing the system can alleviate sensor failures or regeneration cycles, the widespread consensus is doing so carries immense financial and legal risks . . . and is physically dangerous as well.
It seems removing an emissions system can absolutely result in asphyxiation and carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning for passengers. Modifying or deleting components like the catalytic converter increases exhaust toxicity. Combined with the risk of exhaust leaks entering the cabin, this potentially creates life-threatening hazards:
· Increased Toxicity: Emissions systems (like catalytic converters) are designed to convert highly toxic exhaust gases like carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) into less harmful compounds. Removing them allows raw, unfiltered gases to spew from the exhaust.
· Cabin Leaks: If the altered exhaust system leaks under the vehicle, or if windows/trunks are left open while driving, these highly concentrated, toxic fumes can be drawn directly into the passenger compartment.
· Oxygen Displacement: High concentrations of unfiltered exhaust gas quickly deplete the oxygen in a confined space, leading to fatal asphyxiation even if the specific levels of carbon monoxide are not the immediate cause of death.
Not that this sort of thing is limited to automobiles. Some gun rights advocates insist there should be no restrictions on the type of firearms private individuals can own. No, we are not saying gun ownership should be limited to the flintlock muskets in vogue when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, or that they should be completely forbidden by a nationwide Sullivan Law.
Might be a caricature
There is, however, a middle ground, and most gun rights activists as well as gun owners have no problem with rational restrictions, even registration and background checks. The issue of automatic weapons is a bit more . . . delicate, let us say, but matters are not made any better by hysteria on either side.
This is seen, for example, in the widespread myth that you can turn a semi-automatic weapon into a full auto simply by turning a screw, as you might have seen on TV shows and movies. It suggests a basic misunderstanding of firearm mechanics. Modern semi-automatic firearms are intentionally engineered and regulated by law to ensure they cannot be readily converted to automatic fire through simple external adjustments.
A semi-automatic firearm requires a deliberate reset of the internal trigger mechanism after every single shot. To achieve fully automatic fire, the gun must feature an internal device — typically an “auto sear” — that automatically (hence “fully automatic”) trips the hammer or striker the exact millisecond the action closes, continuing the cycle without the shooter releasing the trigger. Standard consumer semi-automatics do not possess this auto sear, and there are no factory-installed screws inside or outside the weapon that control or toggle this mechanical process.
That being said, it is possible to convert a semi-automatic firearm to full auto . . . through entirely different, highly illegal, and sometimes rather dangerous methods:
· Machine Gun Conversion Devices (MCDs). These are illegal physical components added to a weapon. Examples include “Glock switches” (which replace the slide’s back plate to trip the sear) or drop-in auto sears for rifles. These devices add new geometry to the firing mechanism rather than adjusting what is already there.
· Irreversible Machining. Converting standard firearms like an AR-15 usually requires precision gunsmithing. This involves milling out the metal trigger pocket, drilling an entirely new physical hole (the “third hole”) into the receiver, and replacing the entire factory trigger, hammer, and bolt carrier group with military-grade components.
Amateur attempts to bypass the semi-automatic safety cycle — such as filing down internal pins or jamming components — rarely result in a functional automatic weapon. Instead, they typically cause a dangerous condition known as “slam-firing.”
When a weapon slam-fires, the gun empties the entire magazine uncontrollably the moment the first round is chambered. Because the timing of the firing pin is uncoordinated with the locking of the bolt, this frequently causes out-of-battery detonations. This means the cartridge explodes before it is completely sealed inside the barrel, destroying the firearm and causing severe injury or death to the user.
In the United States, similar to tampering with the vehicle emissions system, manufacturing, transferring, or possessing unregulated conversion parts or modifying a firearm to fire automatically carries severe federal penalties under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Now we can finally get to today’s topic: being a good person and a good citizen. If you really, truly believe that removing a vehicle’s emission system or converting a semi-automatic weapon to full auto is your right and you are being oppressed by being prohibited by law from doing as you wish, there is a way to do it without breaking the law.
Yes, we think you should be able to do what you like with what you own within reasonable limits, but that means changing the law, not distorting it. Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was an anti-drug campaign that stressed the speaker, usually some “withit” celebrity, thought drugs should be legalized, but so long as they were illegal, don’t use them, or be prepared to pay the price.
Civil law can often come into conflict with the moral law, but if you violate the civil law while being consistent with the moral law, be prepared to take the consequences. The tactic of people breaking what they believe to be an unjust law to force the issue is extremely questionable morally. The Scopes “monkey trial” of the 1920s was a noted instance of this, as was Roe v. Wade. It encourages legislation by the judiciary and undermines the power of the people by shifting it to the executive and judiciary.
That is hardly being either a good person or a good citizen. In the next posting in this series, we will describe how to go about changing an unjust situation in social justice.
#30#
