Second Amendment Thoughts (Article Format)

Update: This is basically the same content as the outline edition posted earlier. I have edited it into the article format for easier reading on some devices. LLF

Gun Ownership in America

A Personal Position Statement Regarding the Ownership and
Regulation of Firearms by Law-abiding Citizens in
American Society

By Loren L Fenton, DMin
©September 6, 2018

Personal Background

The following information is a backdrop for the positions I express below.

I was born and raised in the farm country of Washington State’s Yakima Valley. I am seventy-three years old at the time of this writing, somewhat old-school, definitely “senior citizen.” I was the youngest of four siblings. Our mother’s influence led each one of us children to “age-of-accountability” baptism and membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As an adult, I served as an ordained minister in the church for forty years. I retired in 2011.

For a dirt-poor farmer’s son, I was blessed to receive an un-dreamed-of education, eventually completing my formal studies in 1998 when I received my Doctor of Ministry degree from Andrews University, Berrien Springs MI.

Personal Experience with Firearms

My father owned two guns for hunting: A 12-guage Winchester pump action shotgun and a .30-30 Winchester lever-action deer rifle. These firearms were always part of our household. My father owned them long before marriage and family entered his life, and continued to use them throughout the remaining span of his seventy-five years.

My brother, who was two years older than me, received a BB gun as a gift around age ten. He and I both learned to shoot using his BB gun. When we ran out of BB shot pellets, we would sometimes open one of Dad’s shotgun shells to get the shot from inside. I did this one time when a friend from a Southern California city was visiting. He was terrified that I would blow myself up, but I knew what I was doing. He didn’t need to worry.

When I was in the ninth grade (age 14), I received my first hunting license. Washington State law required first-time licensees to attend several hours of gun safety instruction, and subsequently pass both written and skills tests before being issued the license.

Many years later, after my father’s death, I inherited his 12-guage shotgun. This gun is still in our family, although I no longer personally have it in my possession.

In the mid-1980’s, because of my involvement in wilderness horse pack trips into the high mountains, I purchased a short-barreled .357 Magnum revolver, which I open-carried during our camping trips into the high country. Later, I sold this firearm to a gun shop when I no longer needed it

As you can readily see from the above sketch, I am comfortable around guns and ammunition. I do not fear them, but I do respect their potential for severe injury or death if not handled with stringent safeguards and safe practices

Second Amendment Considerations

The exact wording of the Second Amendment: 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.  

Note 1: The primary subject of the Second Amendment sentence is “the right of the people.”

Neither the original COTUS, nor the “Bill of Rights” (the first ten Amendments), nor any of the seventeen subsequent Amendments create rights for “the people.” The underlying principle of “rights,” as expressed in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which preceded it, is that “certain unalienable rights” are granted to all people by their Creator, e.g. “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thus, these already-existing God-given rights of “the people” are simply recognized, codified, and protected by the full COTUS, including the right to keep and bear arms as delineated in the Second Amendment, and forcefully underscored by the ending phrase, “shall not be infringed.”

Note 2: The central purpose of this Amendment is “the security of a free State.”

The meaning of “a free State” must be understood in the context of the contemporary nation-states at the time the COTUS was written.

For thousands of years before the birth of this new American nation, the social, political, and religious structures of human societies everywhere were rigid, top-down, command-and-control hierarchies. In the European feudal system, everything—including the land, products, natural resources, and even the people themselves—were properties of the supreme monarch (a king or queen) who could, and often did, rule with an iron fist. As Louis XIV of France infamously declared, “I am the State!” The financial economy existed for one over-riding purpose: to funnel wealth upward for the monarch’s sole determination whether to benefit the subjects of the realm with generosity or to indulge the capricious whims of self-centered power. Religious hierarchies mirrored the secular nations in authoritarian governance, compelling adherence to centralized edicts formulated by elite oligarchies and enforced by persecution, terror, torture, and threat of excommunication.

The Founders of the new nation created a new blueprint—a “free State”—in which people could breathe the air of individual liberty, economic opportunity, personal ownership of land and property, and religious self-determination. President Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed the American ideal of a free State in the immortal words of his Gettysburg Address: Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The COTUS was instituted as the foundational legal document for the new federal government, not to control the people for the benefit of the government or government officials, but to protect the freedom of the common people to speak, assemble, worship, and pursue economic visions according to their own personal choices.

Note 3: The right to own and bear arms—by the lawful citizenry of the nation—is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The Founders of the nation recognized that the liberties—which they held belonged to the people by divine right—could only be protected and preserved by establishing two distinct lines of defense: (A) the legal provision, which they codified in the COTUS, together with subsidiary laws throughout the judicial system; and (B) local practical safeguards against unwelcome intruders threatening harm or creating danger.

“The people” themselves are, in fact, the “well-regulated Militia” referenced in the first phrase of the Amendment. The “Militia” cannot refer to a national or state military presence. Depending exclusively on government-controlled military or police to safeguard local freedoms for every person in the nation would be literally impossible based on simple logistics alone and would create the exact opposite of freedom—a police state enforcing draconian, intrusive regulations dictated by an elite few for the control of the many—effectively destroying the very liberties the COTUS legally protects.

Additionally, the “Militia” cannot refer to rouge, independent self-styled para-military groups whose purpose is insurrection or overthrow of the government. These groups typically operate with extremely rigid top-down, hierarchical command-and-control authoritarianism. The underlying philosophy of these so-called “patriot” groups is indistinguishable from old-world and third-world dictatorships imposing their world-view on all people under their influence and control. Because of their primary modus operandi of authoritarian rule, para-military “militias” are the very antithesis of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The right of ownership presumes the right of every citizen personally to protect his/her own property from theft or injury.

The right to life presumes the responsibility to protect and defend a one’s own life, as well as the life of family members, or others known to be in imminent danger.

Since all laws (regulations) are about relationships, the expression “well-regulated” does recognize the need for certain legal safeguards pertaining to gun ownership, designed to foster safety but still preserve security and protect liberty for the greater good. Individuals posing an obvious danger to themselves or others must be restricted, both legally and physically, from possessing potentially lethal or harmful weapons, including but not limited to firearms. Gun safety instruction and practices, together with hands-on training should carry the highest priority for anyone involved in using firearms at any level or for any purpose. While background checks are a helpful method of filtering gun purchasers for safe and responsible ownership, they must never be imposed by government officials with the intention of abrogating the rights of law-abiding, responsible citizens protected by the Second Amendment.

Mandatory waiting periods following the purchase of a firearm are also an effective and legitimate method of regulation. Waiting periods are not new. They have been in place for decades but vary from state-to-state.

Regulatory laws are generally best created and administered (enforced) at the state level rather than at the federal level. Normally, state governments are closer to and more accessible to the people, and therefore tend to be more responsive to their constituents. This point notwithstanding, I personally do favor a national concealed-carry reciprocity law allowing holders of state concealed-carry permits to legally cross state lines without inadvertently breaking unknown state regulations.

Note 4: Some thoughts about “infringement.”

The Amendment states, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Definition of Infringe: to intrude negatively through encroachment, undermining, or obstruction, resulting in diminished privilege, power, or presence.

By using a double negative construction in this phrase, the Framers provide the most powerful message possible: Intentional, vigilant safeguarding of this “right of the people” as a means to establish the security of a “free State” was—and remains—a critical element for success of the nation.

As I stated above, “the people” (i.e. common citizens living under the laws of the “free State”), compose the “well-regulated Militia” referenced in the Amendment. “The people” are the ones who hold the right “to keep and bear arms.” Thus, any illegal infringement of this and other rights is, in fact, an unwarranted imposition of outside control on the people themselves and constitutes a violation of “free State” liberties.

Illegal infringements could originate from several possible sources: (A) overly-aggressive bureaucrats working at any level of government; (B) widespread waves of knee-jerk legislation following tragic events given high-visibility in both commercial and social media; (C) lynch-mob hysteria during riots or severe social disturbances; or (D) personal attacks such as muggings, armed robberies, home invasions, terrorist assaults, etc.

The people’s defense against illegal infringements is three-fold: (A) legal channels through the duly established court systems and processes—lawsuits and prosecution of offenders—and defensive legislation enacted to preserve all the rights and privileges of “the people”; (B) police presence for protection of lives and property, and for enforcement of legally enacted laws pertaining to the peace, safety, and preservation of every individual’s rights (note: while every community and political entity has some form of police protection, law enforcement officers cannot possibly be “in the right place at the right time” in all conceivable situations. The role of the police is to provide tactical, timely reinforcement for the primary defenders of personal rights—the people themselves); and (C) Immediate defense in the case of personal attacks.

The Framers of the COTUS certainly recognized that personal attacks most often come without warning, and thus provided for emergency, immediate, on-site defense of lives and property by victims of such attacks.

“Arms,” as referenced in the Amendment, is a general expression which can include firearms, knives, swords, or any other weapon available for personal defense. However, there are some necessary limitations. The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the COTUS) was ratified and became law on December 15, 1791. Included, of course, was the Second Amendment, erecting a legal wall against infringing the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. Over the course of the subsequent 226+ years there have been several legislative attempts to limit or clarify the scope of the Amendment and determine its true purpose and legally correct application. The most recent ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) was in 2008:

“The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.” (Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php)

Currently, there are numerous existing laws banning certain types of firearms and firearm modifications. Examples include fully automatic assault rifles and sawed-off shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches. So-called “bump stocks” have been ruled illegal in some States recently, but not at the federal level.

As noted above, however, state-by-state gun regulations vary widely. A listing of both federal and state regulations can easily be researched online.

Note 5: To summarize

I believe the following about personal gun ownership and usage in America: (A) the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a core component of liberty under the COTUS and cannot be infringed without causing severe negative impacts on a free society; but, (B) there must be appropriate and necessary limitations to that right, with the sole purpose of ensuring public safety, but without compromising the security of the “free State.”

Note 6: The “Christian” Connection

I am a Christian. Period. Full stop.

I say this without hesitation or reluctance in any way. As I noted above, I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist, and I served forty years as a minister in the church. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord when I was sixteen years old. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in God’s  free gift of eternal life through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I believe the Bible forms the ultimate foundation of faith and practice for Christians. The Bible (all sixty-six books in both Old and New Testaments) provides moral instruction with examples of great successes and cataclysmic failures, teaching human beings how to live in relationship to both God and other people.

In college I studied as a theology major, and in my formal academic studies I acquired a B.S. in Theology, an M.Div (Master of Divinity), and a D.Min  (Doctor of Ministry). I recognize that many of my colleagues who have the very same educational background and training as my own may not hold the same views as I do regarding gun ownership and regulation. I respect their conscientiously held positions, even though we may differ on several key conclusions. To me, that is the very heart of what it means to live in a “free State,” a privilege which I hold sacred, and which I cherish deeply. (I have listed my education experience here simply to illustrate that my thoughts are not expressed in a vacuum. I have spent many years reading and studying the Bible, religions, secular history, governments, social movements, organizational practices, and many other relevant subjects. My writings in this paper naturally reflect that background.)

The Bible does not teach pacifism, but it does condemn murder. The Sixth Commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13 KJV), however, the Hebrew word translated as “kill” in the KJV is better translated “murder.” This is how it is rendered in the NKJV and other more recent translations. “Murder” is the unlawful taking of human life.

While the loss of human life by accident or intention is indeed tragic on any level, the Bible is replete with incidents when lives were taken yet were not counted as murder. In the Old Testament, God not only sanctioned certain times of warfare, but often directly intervened for victory in behalf of his people. In the New Testament, Jesus taught that even hating someone was the equivalent of murder (Matt 5:21, 22), thus a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

It is worthy of note that while Jesus did teach his disciples to “turn the other cheek,” he was not advocating a bland milquetoast pacifism. Instead, he wanted his followers to refrain from trading insult for insult in retaliation for real or imagined offences.

The Apostle Paul echoed Jesus’ teaching in his letter to the Roman believers when he wrote, “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Do things in such a way that everyone will see that you are honorable. Do your part to live in peace with everyone, as much as possible” (Romans 12:17, 18).

Both Jesus and Paul, however, recognized that at times evil people and evil actions must be met with strong—even violent—resistance. (See Matthew 18:6; Galatians 5:12). Let us not forget that the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) and the “Son of God”—the “Word”—in the New Testament (Jesus) are one and the same. Jesus himself made this clear with his statement, “Before Abraham was even born, I AM” (John 8:58 NLT). It is also notable that the highest commendation expressed by Jesus in any of the four Gospels was regarding the faith of a Roman centurion—an armed military commander of an enemy occupying force in Israel. Jesus did not condemn the presence or use of weapons. At one point, he even instructed his disciples to acquire them.

How, then, should an individual citizen—who also happens to be a professing Christian—living  in a “free State,” relate to the right to “keep and bear arms”?

Because freedom is the key component of this question, no one should be compelled to exercise this or any other God-given right. Liberty of conscience is paramount, and each person’s personal choice must be respected. Conversely, those who do choose to arm themselves for legitimate reasons (e.g. self-defense, protection of life and property, etc.) must be given equal regard, both legally and socially, as those who choose to not do so.

Using the Scriptures as a guide, I see no legitimacy for armed anarchy, rebellion, or attacks on governmental agencies. Hence, although the Second Amendment is silent on its definition of “arms,” I do not believe specific weapons of war (e.g. bombs, tanks, fully automatic rifles, etc.) should be available to common citizens without rigorous vetting to determine the purpose and intended use by other than active military personnel.

In a sinful and often violent world, all countries are compelled to protect their territory, citizens, and national interests using armed defenses. This “wall of protection” is vital to the freedom, peace, and well-being of any nation’s people. It is a sad reality of our present world-wide condition. It is not “un-Christian” to value, respect, and honor the brave men and women who voluntarily “stand on the wall” so that the rest of us can breathe the air of liberty. Likewise, it is equally not “un-Christian” to honor the inherent rights of individual human beings who choose firearms or other types of weapons as tools to protect their personal lives, property, family members, and/or other vulnerable members of their community from harm or injustice.

The Christian’s hope—my hope!—is for a new Earth, promised in the Book of Revelation with the vision of John,

Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:3, 4).

There will be neither need nor use for “arms” in the Earth made New.

“Even so, Come! Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20).

The End