I was engaged in a Facebok conversation recently regarding the carrying of firearms in a church. Specifically, the discussion centered around the Virginia statute that vaguely states that carrying a weapon "without good and sufficient reason" in a church is not lawful. I reminded the participants that former Virginia Attorney Cuccinelli opined that "carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason under the statute to carry a weapon into a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held there."
That evoked a reply from another who stated "Our CWP [concealed weapon permit] and the 2nd amendment should be a valid sufficient reason!"
While I applaud the sentiment, I felt obliged to remind the commenter that it's natural law, not the 2nd Amendment that provides our rights to self-defense. The Bill of Rights only affirms rights that we already posses. That document is meant to protect our God-given rights from those who would seek to restrict them. If anything, the need to obtain a permit to exercise that right directly infringes on the "shall not be infringed" clause.
This is a detail that many in the pro-2A movement often overlook. The anti-gun crowd seeks to disarm law-abiding Americans by focusing on invalid interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. We should take care not to fall into their trap of relying on a man-made document to defend that which exists naturally.
Every single attack on freedoms comes from the Progressive idea that freedoms come from man. They especially feel that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege granted by the gov't, or society, or ...whatever they feel will advance their cause.ReplyDelete
I see the mistake about the 2nd granting the right from both sides all of the time. You should see the heads spin when I tell the gun control group that repealing the 2nd would do nothing to REMOVE the right.....but only government protection from abuse. And then tell them that such abuse is tyranny...... which is why the 2nd is there in the first place and that there might be consequences of doing such.
Agreed! We must stop using their language and definitions. "Gun violence" and "mass shooter" are two I try hard not to use. Inanimate objects cannot be violent, people can (and are.) But "shooter" in that context is especially offensive. Those animals are killers, not shooters. The folks I hang out with at the range are shooters. We must not let the enemies of freedom confuse the discussion.Delete