It seems the major problem in discussing options to oppose government permit restrictions has been that people opposed to the regulation were divided by two distinct theories. About as clearly as it was ever articulated, the "old Family" theory pivots on a belief that the regulation was the work of a few renegade bureaucrats who just can't stand to see free expression in the land of the free. On the bottom line this position relies on "absolute faith" in the judicial system, and runs something like this:
"This is 'We the People Land.' We, and our ancestors, built this country with our taxes. Our right to freely assemble on this land is absolutely protected under the Constitution of the United States of America. The bureaucrats have no authority to disturb that right.
"We don't even have to talk to them. In fact it would be better to act like they're not even there; if we talk to them, they'll just get more info to write more regulations against us.
"I believe we have not only the right, but the responsibility to stand our ground. I also believe the only way that will be possible is through a final challenge to the Constitutionality of the regs in court. Yes, I have absolute faith we will win eventually. It might take awhile, and it
might take some initial failures. But eventually, I believe the right of the People to peaceably assemble without restriction will be upheld."