This a venial or mortal sin or neither?

[liquid1187]

My Dad just bought a handgun for which he has no license and did not register it. This is a felony offense. He is not acting immorally because a owning a handgun is not immoral obviously but he is seriously breaking the law for a just cause (protecting his family). What do you guys think? Is this is sin? He cannot get own one legally because of a prior criminal record he got when he was a young kid.

 

[LilyM]

My Dad just bought a handgun for which he has no license and did not register it. This is a felony offense. He is not acting immorally because a owning a handgun is not immoral obviously but he is seriously breaking the law for a just cause (protecting his family). What do you guys think? Is this is sin? He cannot get own one legally because of a prior criminal record he got when he was a young kid.

St Paul tells us to obey those in authority. If you take a strict interpretation that means you must obey them in everything that isn’t sinful, and that failure to obey is in itself a sin - not always mortal, of course.

Obviously restrictions preventing people with a criminal record from owning guns aren’t sinful, and moreover there’s usually good reasoning behind such restrictions, even if your father or yourself fails to see the logic.

Was the nature of his offense weapons-related? In general it is in fact risky to allow handguns or other weapons into the possession of people who have misused them in the past, so it is reasonable to restrict them from owning such.

Difficult to make a call on this situation without knowing more.

Is there any way around the situation? Can your father apply to get his criminal record expunged? Could the gun maybe be licensed and registered in your name or the name of someone else in the household who doesn’t have a criminal record? I’m presuming your father wouldn’t carry it outside the home.

 

[kage_ar]

Your parent should speak to his Priest about this.

 

[AHapka]

He cannot get own one legally because of a prior criminal record he got when he was a young kid.

This might be something to look into with an attorney.

In Wisconsin (for example), juveniles are not found guilty of crimes. They are adjudicated delinquent. That’s so a juvenile who makes a stupid mistake at 13 can later in life say they were never convicted of a crime. Statute does specify that certain juvenile adjudications do disqualify a person from ever owning a gun, but those are mostly those that involve violence or serious crimes.

Not sure how things work where you are at, or the full details. So research with an attorney. Even if he can’t legally own a gun due to the prior charge, and has had a clean record for many years, he may be able to petition a judge for restoration of rights.

As far as the sin issue, we don’t know enough to even begin to speculate, and that should really be brought up with a priest in any event.

 

[liquid1187]

He and a friend stole a fair amount of alcohol from a store when they were teenagers. I can vouch for him when I say he is a morally good person now and has changed his life around. Yet, this would be a grave sin because of the trouble he would get into if he were to get caught. Unless I am wrong?

 

[Sir_Knight]

My Dad just bought a handgun for which he has no license and did not register it. This is a felony offense. He is not acting immorally because a owning a handgun is not immoral obviously but he is seriously breaking the law for a just cause (protecting his family). What do you guys think? Is this is sin? He cannot get own one legally because of a prior criminal record he got when he was a young kid.

Well, being under Roman rule, it was illegal for Peter to own a sword and being God, Jesus knew about it and never rebuked Peter for carrying but I think you have other issues to consider besides whether or not it is sinful.

Your parent should speak to his Priest about this.

Your father doesn’t need a priest. As was already said, he needs a lawyer. Certain crimes (underage and/or non-violent crimes) can be expulged [sp] from a person’s record so that they can legally purchase a firearm. However, if your father is disqualified from buying a gun under 4473, he is looking at jail time if caught with a firearm.

 

[agmoose02]

I could definitely be wrong in this, but I don’t see how breaking an unconstitutional law is sinful. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It doesnt say, shall not be infringed unless citizen is a felon, or an immigrant, or wears a purple cap on tuesdays. Since the law is in violation of the basis of the nation’s basis for law, I don’t see how it is binding. As Benjamin Franklin said “any people who would trade a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both”

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

I could definitely be wrong in this, but I don’t see how breaking an unconstitutional law is sinful. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It doesnt say, shall not be infringed unless citizen is a felon, or an immigrant, or wears a purple cap on tuesdays. Since the law is in violation of the basis of the nation’s basis for law, I don’t see how it is binding. As Benjamin Franklin said “any people who would trade a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both”

In the purest sense, I agree with you. But this argument will not convince the police to un-cuff you. Liquid, the best of all outcomes would be if your dad got rid of the gun. Honestly, there are other ways to protect your family. As soon as he uses the gun he’s going to go to jail. If someone “rats” him out, He’s going to jail. It was a stupid / imature / selfish decision to buy an illegal gun. Obviously the gun wasn’t purchased from a legal vendor. Where did the gun come from? Was it previously stolen, involved in another crime, who knows it’s history. This was a bad decision. No good will come of it. Convince him to get rid of it.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

I could definitely be wrong in this, but I don’t see how breaking an unconstitutional law is sinful. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It doesnt say, shall not be infringed unless citizen is a felon, or an immigrant, or wears a purple cap on tuesdays. Since the law is in violation of the basis of the nation’s basis for law, I don’t see how it is binding. As Benjamin Franklin said “any people who would trade a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both”

In the purest sense, I agree with you. But this argument will not convince the police to un-cuff you. Liquid, the best of all outcomes would be if your dad got rid of the gun. Honestly, there are other ways to protect your family. As soon as he uses the gun he’s going to go to jail. If someone “rats” him out, He’s going to jail. It was a stupid / imature / selfish decision to buy an illegal gun. Obviously the gun wasn’t purchased from a legal vendor. Where did the gun come from? Was it previously stolen, involved in another crime, who knows it’s history. This was a bad decision. No good will come of it. Convince him to get rid of it.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

WOW, how did I do that. Better question. How do I undo that? Ah, how do you unring a bell.

 

[LilyM]

I could definitely be wrong in this, but I don’t see how breaking an unconstitutional law is sinful. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It doesnt say, shall not be infringed unless citizen is a felon, or an immigrant, or wears a purple cap on tuesdays. Since the law is in violation of the basis of the nation’s basis for law, I don’t see how it is binding. As Benjamin Franklin said “any people who would trade a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both”

There’s no right in the Constitution, from A to Z, that is absolute - all of them have, because they all need to have, some limits imposed on them. The right to bear arms isn’t an exception, and preventing at least some felons (say those who’ve misused weapons in the past) from being able to legally bear them is more than reasonable.

Besides which, it’s for the Supreme Court to decide that a law is unconstitutional, not you. If you think it’s wrong, challenge it in the Court. Unless and until they decide it’s unconstitutional, it’s proper to treat the law as binding unless it actually commands you to sin.

 

[agmoose02]

There’s no right in the Constitution, from A to Z, that is absolute - all of them have, because they all need to have, some limits imposed on them. The right to bear arms isn’t an exception, and preventing at least some felons (say those who’ve misused weapons in the past) from being able to legally bear them is more than reasonable.

Besides which, it’s for the Supreme Court to decide that a law is unconstitutional, not you. If you think it’s wrong, challenge it in the Court. Unless and until they decide it’s unconstitutional, it’s proper to treat the law as binding unless it actually commands you to sin.

I would refer you again to the quote by Ben Franklin. These kinds of laws are an example of trading freedom for security. While many of these laws seem reasonable at face value, when put together they result in the steady erosion of this constitutional right. And actually no legislated law can legally contradict any part of the constitution unless it also becomes an amendment to repeal an amendment. As for the supreme court, that is essentially a coin toss depending on the conservative-liberal split. There are too many activist judges who forget that their function is to interpret the laws, not legislate from the bench. Making laws is the perogative of congress and the states.

As for my previous post, I was responding to whether or not it was a sin. Since the law itsself is in violation of the law I believe the answer is no. If I were asked as to what I believed the best course of action is, I would say get rid of the gun unless the person wants to make a serious challenge to the law. I agree with other poster that the cops won’t care that it is technically unconstitutional. It should be clear though that these are two separate issues, whether it is a sin and what is the most practical course of action.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Besides which, it’s for the Supreme Court to decide that a law is unconstitutional, not you. If you think it’s wrong, challenge it in the Court. Unless and until they decide it’s unconstitutional, it’s proper to treat the law as binding unless it actually commands you to sin.

The Supreme Court does not hear every case that is presented to them. This issue has been brought up hundreds up time and they finally agreed to hear it. A ruling is expected by early summer.

 

[Newbie2]

I could definitely be wrong in this, but I don’t see how breaking an unconstitutional law is sinful. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It doesnt say, shall not be infringed unless citizen is a felon, or an immigrant, or wears a purple cap on tuesdays. Since the law is in violation of the basis of the nation’s basis for law, I don’t see how it is binding. As Benjamin Franklin said “any people who would trade a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both”

It’s a law if it’s on the OP state books as a law, whether or not you or anyone else believes differently, or if it indeed is an unjust law doesn’t chang the fact that it is (according to the OP) a law.

I like the idea to speak with a lawyer and see what his options are.

 

[Sir_Knight]

There are two issues here: is it sinful and is it unlawful?

Unlawful? Yes! Sinful? Open to discussion. As I said above, even St. Peter carried a sword when it was illegal to do so and Jesus had no problem with it.

Should the person be doing it? No! He could end up in more trouble than it’s worth.

 

[kage_ar]

Your father doesn’t need a priest. As was already said, he needs a lawyer…

The op sought advice on the gravity of sin. That is something that can ONLY be answered by a Priest. The OP did not ask this group for legal advice, nor, would it be wise for us to offer such.

I repeat what I said, to determine the sin in the situation, the person should consult a priest.

 

[BlaineTog]

I could definitely be wrong in this, but I don’t see how breaking an unconstitutional law is sinful. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” It doesnt say, shall not be infringed unless citizen is a felon, or an immigrant, or wears a purple cap on tuesdays. Since the law is in violation of the basis of the nation’s basis for law, I don’t see how it is binding. As Benjamin Franklin said “any people who would trade a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both”

The right to bear arms is not absolute, unless you would issue loaded handguns to every inmate in prison.

 

[Sir_Knight]

As I said, under Roman rule, it was illegal for Peter to carry a sword and yet he did it and our Lord didn’t rebuke him for it. As a matter of fact, our Lord instructed His followers to go out and purchase swords even if they had to sell their coats to do so.

 

[agmoose02]

The right to bear arms is not absolute, unless you would issue loaded handguns to every inmate in prison.

This is a fallacious argument, a prison inmate is deprived of certain rights due to the nature of incarceration. However, once the debt to society is paid and the probationary term completed, I don’t see a problem with excons having weapons legally. The problem with anti-gun laws is that they only affect the freedoms of law abiding citizens. A criminal is not going to decide against committing a crime just because he/she can’t purchase a firearm at the sporting goods store.

 

[BlaineTog]

This is a fallacious argument, a prison inmate is deprived of certain rights due to the nature of incarceration.

It would have been fallacious if I were making the argument that ex-cons shouldn’t be allowed guns. Your argument was that the right to bear arms is irrevocable and absolute, and therefore ex-cons should be allowed to own guns. My argument was to disprove your premise, no more, no less, and on that count, the only count I was aiming for, I was successful. Your objection is a strawman.

Now of course, you could change your argument to “The right to bear arms is absolute for everyone not in prison,” but that would require a different proof entirely (and you’d have to clearly mark that you were changing your argument, lest you commit a fallacy).