Tag Archives: concealedcarry

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | The Constitution is the Only Permission You Need to Carry a Gun

Daily Verse | Esther 9:28b
And these days of Purim should never cease to be celebrated by the Jews, nor should the memory of them die out among their descendants.

Happy Tuesday my friends. Some of you can’t carry a tune unless it’s dead and slung over your shoulder.

Speaking of dead and slung over your shoulder … Texas is this close to adopting a constitutional carry law. Constitutional carry means that a person can carry a handgun concealed or openly without a license or permit. In other words, Texas is ready to acknowledge that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only regulation we need to “keep and bear arms.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

— Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

I’ve often thought that any regulation of “arms” is an infringement, and therefore a violation of, my second amendment rights.

I have to take a class in order to carry a gun? Infringement.

I have to pay a fee and get fingerprinted to own a gun? Infringement.

I have to leave my gun outside when I come into your establishment? Infringement.

I can only use magazines that hold ten bullets or less? Infringement.

The Second Amendment does not say that I can have gun if I have a permit. Or if I pass a test. All it says is that I have a right to keep (own) and bear (carry and use) Arms.

Texas, along with 20 other states, is simply removing all of the obstacles and red tape that government bureaucracy has layered onto gun ownership. It wasn’t always like this.

We were visiting my aunt this weekend and while I was at her house, I saw that she had a .22 caliber rifle. When I asked her about it, she told the story of her and her fiancé stopping by a gun shop on the way home from the wedding rehearsal dinner. They went in, looked at different guns, and chose that one. No background checks. No ID necessary. No registration with the government. Just picking out a gun in a local store like you would vegetables for dinner.

Then, they brought it home and took it out back, where they fired it into a slope. No gun range, no laws prohibiting shooting in a local neighborhood, no “eyes and ears” required; just a fun hobby they did together.

Something similar is happening in South Carolina, where “Gov. Henry McMaster will soon sign legislation that will allow South Carolinians with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns openly in public.” A step in the right direction, for sure, with the main goal being to some day strip the permit requirement altogether.

That’s the Constitution in its purest form, and we need to be willing to fight for and support legislation like this, especially as the country falls farther down the rabbit hole.

by

Daily Broadside | If You Love Jesus, Bring Your Gun to Church

Daily Verse | 2 Chronicles 23:11
Johoiada and his sons brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him; they presented him with a copy of the covenant and proclaimed him king. They anointed him and shouted, “Long live the king!”

It’s Thursday my friends, aka Friday Eve. Whoop whoop! If who’s on first, how could he have let the dogs out?

I came across an interesting post yesterday (thanks to Instapundit) that added more knowledge to my continued reflections on being armed not only as an American, but first and foremost as a Christian man. There is much debate about whether a true Christian should resort to violence in any circumstances, or whether a true Christian has the discretion to use arms to defend himself and others when the moment calls for it.

The post, “Be A True Christian: Carry Your Gun To Worship,” goes a step further than just giving Christians the discretion to decide whether or not to arm themselves and instead claims that believers have a duty to be armed. The post draws heavily on a chapter in a book called “The Sabbath in Puritan New England” written in 1891 by Alice Morse Earle. The chapter is titled “The Church Militant.”

In it, Earle describes how men in Massachusetts in 1640 were required by law to arm themselves when they attended church “for public safety.” A few years later, in Connecticut, a law was passed in which men who neglected such laws were fined “twelve pence for each offence.”

In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a “competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;” one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection for each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected “by divers persones,” a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the “trayned hand” was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks. They were also commanded to wear armor, which consisted of “coats basted with cotton-wool, and thus made defensive against Indian arrows.” In 1650 so much dread and fear were felt of Sunday attacks from the red men that the Sabbath-Day guard was doubled in number. In 1692, the Connecticut Legislature ordered one fifth of the soldiers in each town to come armed to each meeting, and that nowhere should be present as a guard at time of public worship fewer than eight soldiers and a sergeant. In Hadley the guard was allowed annually from the public treasury a pound of lead and a pound of powder to each soldier.

What’s fascinating about this is that armed men were posted out of fear of Native Americans (e.g. Indians) attacking them while they were worshiping. As blog post author Herschel Smith puts it, “Men ready to protect themselves, their centers of worship, and the families” where they “are most vulnerable.”

While historical, this account will be perplexing for some believers. “How can you be a Christian and be ready to kill someone?” will be a common question. Or, “that was then, this is now” might be another response. Of course, we’ve seen how “this is now” is sometimes very similar to “that was then.”

WARNING: GRAPHIC

I don’t claim that this historical account somehow “proves” that being an armed congregant is biblical. It is simply an example from our early history on this continent that the use of guns was a common practice in vulnerable communities, even so far as to be enshrined in law. No one had any hesitation about firearms being a normal part of life, including the church.

That it was once such a practice but isn’t currently raises important questions such as, What did lawmakers and men in the seventeenth century know that we don’t? It’s this: they recognized that evil existed and that they had a moral duty to protect the vulnerable—women and children and the community as a whole—and to fight against those who would do them harm.

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Exodus 22:2-3 (New King James Version)

Perhaps if it was true then, it is still true today.