I was engaged in a Facebok conversation recently regarding the carrying of firearms in a church. Specifically, the discussion centered around the Virginia statute that vaguely states that carrying a weapon "without good and sufficient reason" in a church is not lawful. I reminded the participants that former Virginia Attorney Cuccinelli opined that "carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason under the statute to carry a weapon into a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held there."
That evoked a reply from another who stated "Our CWP [concealed weapon permit] and the 2nd amendment should be a valid sufficient reason!"
While I applaud the sentiment, I felt obliged to remind the commenter that it's natural law, not the 2nd Amendment that provides our rights to self-defense. The Bill of Rights only affirms rights that we already posses. That document is meant to protect our God-given rights from those who would seek to restrict them. If anything, the need to obtain a permit to exercise that right directly infringes on the "shall not be infringed" clause.
This is a detail that many in the pro-2A movement often overlook. The anti-gun crowd seeks to disarm law-abiding Americans by focusing on invalid interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. We should take care not to fall into their trap of relying on a man-made document to defend that which exists naturally.