Michael Hopkins
Regular Member
Hello all;
As I've been sitting here reading posts all over the forum tonight, I thought I might ask a question that has been bouncing around inside my skull for a bit.
Let's say you have a personal religion you practice and/or believe. Let's say this religion says you have the responsibility to protect yourself/family/others.
Now, let's go the next hypothetical step and say the gov't tries to say (for whatever reason) the 2a is null/void or somehow otherwise tries to remove your RKBA.
For the sake of conversation, how successful do you think a person might be to say "My religion says I must defend myself and my loved ones, and my weapon is thereby a tool required by my religion. Since you may not infringe on my right to free practice of my religion, leave my weapon(s) alone."
I've seen others make this statement in passing, but was curious if this might actually hold water. Any case law or cites for or against this line of thinking and/or personal thoughts/opinions would be interesting.
Mike
As I've been sitting here reading posts all over the forum tonight, I thought I might ask a question that has been bouncing around inside my skull for a bit.
Let's say you have a personal religion you practice and/or believe. Let's say this religion says you have the responsibility to protect yourself/family/others.
Now, let's go the next hypothetical step and say the gov't tries to say (for whatever reason) the 2a is null/void or somehow otherwise tries to remove your RKBA.
For the sake of conversation, how successful do you think a person might be to say "My religion says I must defend myself and my loved ones, and my weapon is thereby a tool required by my religion. Since you may not infringe on my right to free practice of my religion, leave my weapon(s) alone."
I've seen others make this statement in passing, but was curious if this might actually hold water. Any case law or cites for or against this line of thinking and/or personal thoughts/opinions would be interesting.
Mike