Well, if you are committing civil disobedience, it means you are openly defying the law, basically daring to be arrested so you can challenge the law. Nothing wrong with that, it's an American tradition.
But if you are sneaking around a NP or downtown DC with a gun in your shirt, that's not civil disobedience. It's a risk you are taking for self-preservation. If you're considering breaking a law like that, you need to do a risk analysis:
What are the risks of going unarmed? Becoming a dead or seriously wounded crime victim.
What are the risks of going discretley armed? Becoming a victim of bad laws and get let down by guys like expvideowho worship the law and won't support you. And, maybe, become a wounded or dead crime victim anyway, since a gun is no guarantee you'll ward off crime.
Of the two risks, the second sounds worse to me, since the justice system is much scarier than most street thugs. Successfully defend yourself with a gun, get screwed anyway. Best to avoid places like that
, and to knuckle under and obey unless you have the time, money, and support to fight it.
If I were sitting on a jury, of course, and such a case came before me, I automatically vote to aquit the guy with the illegal gun who was just defending himself, since such a law is clearly unjust. I wonder if others would do the same, who think obeying the law takes precedence over doing what is just.