In answer to the ops question- no, they don't have the right.
In Madisons 63rd federalist, he alluded to our system of checks and balances for power and how the role of government is limited. He then shows the outline for "if" an autocratic or herteronomy style law were to be executive ordered into existence, what can happen. "The sovereign" which is us, we the people, have ultimate final power in the validity of laws. We elect those whom we believe will represent us, and we agree to be governed by them. Though we may not agree to everh decision, we agree to be "ruled" by these choices made and as a whole it balances in the name of justice, mercy, equality, personal freedom, etc. However, if one of our elected (or unelected for that matter) dingbats make a law of overstepping significance, one so egregious that a large majority simply will not go along with it- We, the sovereign can simply choose to ignore it- for it to be invalid and it becomes so. It's our "executive order" power as the outside of government branch known as the sovereign. If we defy it en masse, the law is of no effect.
In essence, it's what California has done with marijuana, and illegals. But it takes a movement. A large mass of like minded people to facilitate. Otherwise it's all "civil disobedience", and "ignoring the rule of law."
I've been told by many, even law enforcement officials that the most dangerous thing they often encounter is a citizen with a constitution in their back pocket. As for me- 22 incoming for Thanksgiving. Including 2 with masks as they are high risk, 1 92 year old woman without one cause no one tells Grandma she has to do anything.