Christians obeying the civil law: the example of gun control

[Archivist]

In another thread I proposed the need to restrict or even ban automatic and semi-automatic guns in the United States. This was said in light of the numerous mass shootings in America.

Several posters said that they would refuse to follow any laws banning such weapons. One went so far as to say that such a law would lead to a civil war.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "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." However, in the past this has been held to not bar the government from regulating or restricting certain weapons.

Scripture tells us "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Romans 13:1) (ESV).

Assuming that a law banning such weapons were lawfully enacted, would Christians be bound to follow such a law?

For purposes of this discussion an automatic gun is defined as one that continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. A semi-automatic firearm is defined as one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again assuming cartridges remain in the firearm's feed device.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Are you aware that fully automatic weapons are generally not available to civilians? “Banning” them is a bit redundant.

Are Christians obligated to follow that law (as idiotic as it is)? I would say yes since the law doesn’t infringe upon the exercise of religion.

Luckily, the one issue where the GOP seems capable of standing their ground is guns so I don’t think there’s much of anything to worry about here.

EDIT- The idiotic law I refer to above is a hypothetical ban which includes semi automatic firearms. I find such an idea quite completely idiotic but that doesn’t mean that Christians get to ignore it.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you aware that fully automatic weapons are generally not available to civilians? “Banning” them is a bit redundant.

Are Christians obligated to follow that law (as idiotic as it is)? I would say yes since the law doesn’t infringe upon the exercise of religion.

Luckily, the one issue where the GOP seems capable of standing their ground is guns so I don’t think there’s much of anything to worry about here.

That bolded part.

 

[Archivist]

Are you aware that fully automatic weapons are generally not available to civilians? “Banning” them is a bit redundant.

Are Christians obligated to follow that law (as idiotic as it is)? I would say yes since the law doesn’t infringe upon the exercise of religion.

Luckily, the one issue where the GOP seems capable of standing their ground is guns so I don’t think there’s much of anything to worry about here.

Yes, I am aware of that. Automatic weapons manufactured since 1986 may not be sold to civilians. Those manufactured before 1986, however, may be bought and sold, abet with several restrictions.

 

[Dave-W]

Assuming that a law banning such weapons were lawfully enacted, would Christians be bound to follow such a law?

Absolutely.

 

[Dave-W]

Luckily, the one issue where the GOP seems capable of standing their ground is guns so I don’t think there’s much of anything to worry about here.

The gun issue is NOT one of the christian faith, it is purely civil.

That said, I am bothered greatly by those who try to turn it into a doctrinal issue.

 

[Radagast]

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "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." However, in the past this has been held to not bar the government from regulating or restricting certain weapons.

Indeed, and the US does indeed ban or restrict a number of weapons. In particular, automatic weapons are already restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

However, SCOTUS has also held that the 2nd amendment provides the right to weapons for hunting, sport, self-defence, and other purposes. Any large-scale ban on semiautomatic weapons would therefore almost certainly be held to be unconstitutional.

Assuming that a law banning such weapons were lawfully enacted, would Christians be bound to follow such a law?

Yes, of course. If they were lawfully enacted.

 

[Archivist]

Indeed, and the US does indeed ban or restrict a number of weapons. In particular, automatic weapons are already restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'm already aware of that. See post #4.

However, SCOTUS has also held that the 2nd amendment provides the right to weapons for hunting, sport, self-defence, and other purposes. Any large-scale ban on semiautomatic weapons would therefore almost certainly be held to be unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has never held that anyone has a right to semi-automatic weapons for any of these purposes.

 

[dqhall]

In another thread I proposed the need to restrict or even ban automatic and semi-automatic guns in the United States. This was said in light of the numerous mass shootings in America.

Several posters said that they would refuse to follow any laws banning such weapons. One went so far as to say that such a law would lead to a civil war.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "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." However, in the past this has been held to not bar the government from regulating or restricting certain weapons.

Scripture tells us "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Romans 13:1) (ESV).

Assuming that a law banning such weapons were lawfully enacted, would Christians be bound to follow such a law?

For purposes of this discussion an automatic gun is defined as one that continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. A semi-automatic firearm is defined as one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again assuming cartridges remain in the firearm's feed device.

Jesus did not come to raise an army. His disciples and apostles did not organize themselves into militias. Jesus' group was briefly armed prior to his arrest, but Jesus commanded his disciple to put his sword back in its place. Jesus said, "...all those who take the sword will die by the sword." Matt. 26:52

The United States has a higher murder rate than nations with stricter gun control laws. It is not proper to allow criminals, terrorists and mentally ill people to own guns. Germany requires universal background checks, gun permits for gun owners and a one year waiting period. Their streets are much safer.

When greedy people put gun sales above public safety, there was blood on the streets. The US is no longer protected by militias. The Department of Defense was entrusted with defense as were the National Guard, FBI, state and local police. Vigilantes sometimes acted against the law and were a threat to public safety.

Since the United States is a democracy, some states and cities have raised gun purchase ages to 21, banned bump stocks and banned large capacity magazines. This is perfectly legal, even though some gun fanatics have been angered and are hostile.

 

[Radagast]

But the Supreme Court has never held that anyone has a right to semi-automatic weapons for any of these purposes.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), SCOTUS upheld the right to semiautomatic handguns for self-defence purposes.

Any blanket ban on semiautomatic rifles would be unconstitutional under the same reasoning.

 

[Radagast]

Since the United States is a democracy, some states and cities have raised gun purchase ages to 21, banned bump stocks and banned large capacity magazines. This is perfectly legal

Indeed. Such state restrictions have existed for a long time.

And my understanding is that Donald Trump is arranging to have bump stocks banned federally.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Jesus did not come to raise an army. His disciples and apostles did not organize themselves into militias. Jesus' group was briefly armed prior to his arrest, but Jesus commanded his disciple to put his sword back in its place. Jesus said, "...all those who take the sword will die by the sword." Matt. 26:52

The United States has a higher murder rate than nations with stricter gun control laws. It is not proper to allow criminals, terrorists and mentally ill people to own guns. Germany requires universal background checks, gun permits for gun owners and a one year waiting period. Their streets are much safer.

When greedy people put gun sales above public safety, there was blood on the streets. The US is no longer protected by militias. The Department of Defense was entrusted with defense as were the National Guard, FBI, state and local police. Vigilantes sometimes acted against the law and were a threat to public safety.

Since the United States is a democracy, some states and cities have raised gun purchase ages to 21, banned bump stocks and banned large capacity magazines. This is perfectly legal, even though some gun fanatics have been angered and are hostile.

No, its a constitutional republic. How about passing laws that keep firearms out of the hands of criminals but DO NOT affect law abiding citizens.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The gun issue is NOT one of the christian faith, it is purely civil.

That said, I am bothered greatly by those who try to turn it into a doctrinal issue.

Not sure what that has to do with my post. But okay.

 

[Archivist]

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), SCOTUS upheld the right to semiautomatic handguns for self-defence purposes.

Any blanket ban on semiautomatic rifles would be unconstitutional under the same reasoning.

Actually if you read the two cases you referenced, you know that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment secures for individuals the right to keep and bear arms, including handguns, for the purpose of self-defense. Neither case, however, specifically held that there is a right to own semi-automatic guns.

 

[Radagast]

The United States has a higher murder rate than nations with stricter gun control laws.

The US overall, yes. Minnesota has a lower murder rate than Canada, though.

When greedy people put gun sales above public safety, there was blood on the streets.

That's not what happened, exactly. In fact, a large number of Americans (mostly in "red states") like to own guns for hunting, sport, and self-defence. That's been true since the US was first settled.

The US is no longer protected by militias.

As I read the constitution, it's saying that overall security of the US is enhanced by the average citizen having the ability to shoot. "Militia" essentially means "military" in the constitution, and a citizen able to shoot can be turned into a soldier moderately quickly, if needed.

 

[Radagast]

Actually if you read the two cases you referenced, you know that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment secures for individuals the right to keep and bear arms, including handguns, for the purpose of self-defense. Neither case, however, specifically held that there is a right to own semi-automatic guns.

If you're trying to argue that the intent of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was to allow only antique single-shot duelling pistols, you're just wrong. Those cases concerned ordinary (semiautomatic) handguns.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Actually if you read the two cases you referenced, you know that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment secures for individuals the right to keep and bear arms, including handguns, for the purpose of self-defense. Neither case, however, specifically held that there is a right to own semi-automatic guns.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
One thing is for sure, the founding fathers saw people like you coming and made sure we would have a way to protect ourselves. Screaming gun control after a shooting is as ludicrous as screaming "match control" after a fire. Most firearms are semi-automatic. Should we be reduced to one bullet at a time? Oh then I can tell the criminal that is violently attacking my family to stop for a minute while I reload my firearm.

 

[Archivist]

If you're trying to argue that the intent of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was to allow only antique single-shot duelling pistols, you're just wrong.

Please show me where I made any such claim.

Those cases concerned semiautomatic handguns.

Yes, both cases involved semi-automatic handguns. However, if you read the rulings, you know that the Court was very narrow in both opinions. It held that people have a right to carry a gun for self defense, even a pistol. Neither case held that anyone has a right to carry a semi-automatic gun.

 

[Archivist]

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
One thing is for sure, the founding fathers saw people like you coming and made sure we would have a way to protect ourselves. Screaming gun control after a shooting is as ludicrous as screaming "match control" after a fire. Most firearms are semi-automatic. Should we be reduced to one bullet at a time? Oh then I can tell the criminal that is violently attacking my family to stop for a minute while I reload my firearm.

Please stay on topic. The question under discussion is "Assuming that a law banning such weapons were lawfully enacted, would Christians be bound to follow such a law?"

 

[Radagast]

It held that people have a right to carry a gun for self defense, even a pistol. Neither case held that anyone has a right to carry a semi-automatic gun.

All modern pistols are semiautomatic guns.

The only single-shot pistols are antique duelling weapons.