I guess it depends on a person's priorities, but yeah.
(I personally don't criticize a person for taking a course of action that results in inconvenience or worse, oppression, when that course of action involves taking a stand against some injustice, even if it is not foreseeable that their stand will effect change.)
Lets break down the legal analysis of Oh Shoot.
The legislature may regulate wearing arms with a view to preventing crime. Oh, really? Howwww are they going to do that? How are they going to distinguish a criminal intent from wearing a gun from the legitimate intent to be able to defend against grave bodily injury or death. Or, political activism? How exactly are they going to make that distinction when exercising their power "with a view to preventing crime?"
They can't. Plain and simple. There is no way to distinguish between the criminal wearing a gun and a good-guy wearing a gun until after he uses the gun. Or, maybe demonstrates very clear indicators of contemplating a crime, e.g., walking back and forth to take repeated peeks into a jewelry store window, giving rise to a suspicion that he is "casing the joint" for an armed robbery (See Terry v Ohio.) Outside of that, there is no way to regulate gun carry "with a view to preventing crime".
So, immediately, we know the constitutional provision is bogus outside of a very narrow range of circumstances that cannot be sorted out until after the crime is committed or high suspicion justified. Well, that just knocked out almost every possible regulation and penalty. About all that is left is sentencing enhancements after conviction. And, even that would not be preventing crime, only dissuading crime.
So, with an eye--a bogus eye--to preventing crime, the legislature penalizes refusing to show a cop your permission slip? Really? You wouldn't have the damned permission slip if you were a criminal!! The fact you bothered to obtain one argues massively that you are not a criminal.
Do these people think I was born yesterday?