That is the correct way to frame the argument.
If we were talking about DC banning carrying signs in public places, it would be pretty clear that although persons doing such would be in violation of DC law, that the law is illegitimate since it violates the Constitution. I assert that using force to prevent citizens from carrying signs in public places is certainly against the Constitution.
Criticize them for violating illegal ordinances? Are you really going to criticize a victim for their own rape?
If the DC law is illegal, as SCOTUS already declared, then the police are the criminals.
As far as the Constitution goes, it’s not holding a high ideal to believe we should have legal contract to define the scope and responsibility of government. What’s in the Contract is going to change and can be debated, but is wanting to live in civil society a “high ideal”?
What’s happening now isn’t new – a minority are speaking-out against a lawless, criminal government.