ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

PART FIVE

The rationale for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is, from a logical viewpoint, a conclusion we derive from a set of postulates—predicate propositions—the truth of which, as we argue, support national concealed handgun carry reciprocity in our Country and in our Country’s territories.What we provide for you below is the Arbalest Quarrel’s formal argument in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity set forth in linear, syllogistic fashion. We invite reader comment.A FORMAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY BETWEEN AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND U.S. TERRITORIES.

1. The predicate instinct for survival, self-defense, is natural, primordial, and fundamental to any living creature or being, however lowly or lofty that creature or being is on the taxonomic scale of life. {Postulate}
2. As the instinct for survival is natural, primordial, and fundamental to all living creatures and beings, the moral imperative to defend one’s life and well-being stems from and is a corollary of the instinct for survival. {Corollary, derived from (1)}
3. A person has the moral right to defend his or her life against a threat to that life. {Inference, derived from (1) and (2)}
4. The right of self-defense is a preeminent right, pre-existent in and intrinsic to the sanctity and inviolability of a person as an autonomous individual. {Postulate}
5. Since the right of self-defense is intrinsic to one’s self, the right is not man-made or institutionally or governmentally derived. {Postulate}
6. A right inherent in the individual is not and cannot be rationally construed as a privilege granted by or ceded to or licensed by a governmental authority to a person. {Inference, derived from (5)}
7. Since the right of self-defense is an attribute of and inherent in individuals, no government can rightfully deny a person his or her natural, primordial, fundamental right to defend his or her life against those who would take that life without, just cause. {Inference, derived from Premises (4) through (6)}
8. Because the right of self-defense exists within the individual and does not emanate from a governmental body, no government can justifiably take that right from the individual. {Corollary of (5) and (6)}
9. If one is denied the natural right of self-defense—the right to preserve integrity of mind and body—the import of any other right becomes meaningless. {Postulate}
10. The right to protect oneself against serious bodily injury, harm, disability and/or death, which includes the right to preserve integrity of mind as well as body, is the quintessential preeminent right. {Postulate}
11. The right of self-defense precedes all other rights, pre-existent in a person. {Inference, derived from (10)}
12. From the right to safeguard one’s personal physical and psychological integrity flows the duty to do so—the duty to safeguard autonomy of self against any threat against that personal autonomy. {Corollary of Premises (20) and (11)}
13. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the inherent right of self-defense pre-existent in and preeminent in the individual. {Postulate}
14. Given the truth of premises (9) through (13), the Second Amendment is a codification of the fundamental and preeminent right of self-defense preexistent in the American citizen. {Inference, derived from Premises (7) through (13)}
15. The preservation of all other rights is dependent, first and foremost, on the preservation of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution {Corollary of Premise (14)}
16. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution preserves the integrity of the Nation as a free Republic through recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of each American citizen. {Inference, derived from Premises (10) through (15)}
17. One’s personal physical and psychological integrity would be compromised and therefore diminished or lost were our democratic Republic to devolve into an autocracy regardless of the form of autocracy: monarchy, plutocracy, oligarchy, technocracy, or theocracy—all of which proceed from the concept of an elite aristocratic ruling class that, alone, holds ultimate authority for determining what rights a person may enjoy and the nature of that person’s position and very existence in the body politic. {Postulate}
18. The drafters of the Nation’s Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution knew that nothing secures individual integrity and autonomy more ably and nobly and nothing preserves a free Republic more assuredly and resolutely as a guard against autocracy than personal ownership of and possession of a firearm in the hands of the American citizen. {Postulate}
19. The codification of the right of self-defense in the Second Amendment conveys the singular importance of the firearm in securing both the right of self-defense and securing and preserving the continued existence of our Nation as a free Republic. {Corollary of (18)}
20. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has neither import nor purport where a nation state constrains that right—where a nation state places restrictions on a free people’s natural, fundamental right to own and possess firearms—to own and possess firearms in each citizen’s individual capacity and to own and possess firearms as individual property. {Inference, derived from Premises (17) through (19)}
21. For the Second Amendment to have true efficacy, the right of each law-abiding American citizen to keep and bear arms must be understood as exemplifying that right in the broadest of terms. {Corollary of (20)}
22. For decades, this Nation has undergone a systematic transformation, devolving into autocracy while maintaining the trappings of a Free Republic. {Evidentiary proposition}
23. The transformation of our Nation from a Republic to an autocracy proceeds directly from the undermining of the codification of the individual citizen’s natural right to keep and bear arms. {Evidentiary proposition}
24. Any act by government—federal, state, or local—to constrain ownership and possession of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen—erodes the foundation of a free Republic, operates as an attack on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, and constitutes an attack on personal autonomy and personal integrity, thereby undermining and ultimately destroying the underpinnings of the Nation’s Bill of Rights. {Inference derived from Premises (23) and (24)}.
25. Any act by government—federal, state, or local—to constrain ownership and possession of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen—erodes the foundation of a free Republic, operates as an attack on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, constitutes an attack on personal autonomy and personal integrity, and operates as a clear revocation of and repudiation of the rationale of and for the Nation’s Bill of Rights. {Corollary of (24)}.
26. Governments—local, State, and Federal—posit that regulation of firearms is necessary to preserve public order and safety of the community and that restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens is therefore necessary to preserve the integrity of the Community. {Precept of Government which manifests as unlawful interference in the lives of citizens, resulting in denigration of personal autonomy and dissolution of individuality and personal integrity}.
27. Tension exists between a government’s attempt to wrest control from and to exert power over the individual and the individual’s attempt to maintain integrity of self against incursion of government over individual integrity and autonomy. {Postulate}
28. The Bill of Rights, as a critical component of the U.S. Constitution, operating as the singular mechanism that curbs government encroachment on, incursion in, and ultimate destruction of individual autonomy and inviolability. {Evidentiary Proposition}
29. Regulation of firearms in the hands of the citizenry—by government, regardless of stated purpose of government —invariably conveyed to the individual as an assertion of the need or desire to preserve and protect the viability of a community—amounts inevitably, and invariably, and tacitly as a drive to accumulate power over and at the expense of the individual, thereby undermining the individual’s ability to preserve and protect self and to preserve and protect the autonomy and integrity of self. {Inference, derived from Premises (23) through (28)}
30. The erosion, in recent decades, of the Nation’s sacred rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights stems first and foremost from a direct, unequivocal, systematic attack on the fundamental, primordial, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. {Evidentiary Proposition}
31. Systematic erosion of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments stems from erosion of the Second Amendment. {Inference derived from Premise (30)}
32. The Destruction of a Free Republic and the erosion of individual autonomy follows from the undermining of the Second Amendment. {Inference derived from Premise (30) and Corollary of Premise (31)}
33. To counter the incremental, systematic destruction of a free Republic and to withstand the unceasing attack on individual autonomy, it is necessary to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; for, only if the Second Amendment is strengthened will further erosion of our free Republic, further erosion of the American citizenry’s other fundamental rights and liberties, and further erosion of the autonomy of self be forestalled. {Inference derived from Premises (30) through (32)}
34. National concealed handgun reciprocity operates at once as a renouncement of Government interference with, and as a renouncement of Government’s restraint on the citizen’s fundamental, natural right of self-defense under the Second Amendment; and proceeds as a rational, logical backlash against Government’s increasing encroachment on individual autonomy and unlawful usurpation of power over the American citizen, in direct contradistinction to and in violation of and in abject defiance of the limitations on the exercise of governmental power as expressly set forth in the U.S. Constitution; and in abject defiance to the citizen’s exercise of rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights. {Inference derived from Premise (33)}.
35. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity is a natural response to unlawful Government incursion into individual autonomy. (Corollary of Premise (34)}
36. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity promotes personal autonomy, personal safety and security, secures further rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and prevents an otherwise inevitable slide of a free Republic into autocracy and tyranny. {Inference, derived from Premises (34) and (35)}.
37. The strengthening of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the only way to prevent, one, the Nation’s otherwise inexorable slide into autocracy; two, the dissolution of a free Republic; three, the inevitable destruction of the Bill of Rights; and four, the humbling of the individual to the dictates of Government. {Inference, derived from Premises (28) through (37)}
38. The slow demolishment of the United States as a free Republic, and the eradication of the notion of the autonomy of the individual proceeds silently but the effects are visible. {Evidentiary Proposition}
39. The American citizen has a duty to protect and preserve the Nation as a free Republic that the Founders of the Republic cemented and bequeathed to each American citizen. {Postulate}
40. It is therefore incumbent on each American citizen to preserve the Nation as a free Republic. {Inference, derived from Premise (39)}
41. To preserve the true import and purport of the entirety of this Nation’s Bill of Rights and to secure this Nation's continued existence as a free Republic, it is necessary to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. {Inference, derived from Premise (33)}
42. The realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is a mandate for the American citizen if this Nation is to constrain and contain and, ultimately, reverse the inexorable slide toward oblivion of this Nation as a free Republic and to reverse the dangerous incursion of ideas antithetical to the notion of the supremacy of the individual embodied in the Bill of Rights. {Inference, derived from Premises (36) through (41)}
43. Thus, those Americans who value the continued survival of our Nation as a free Republic, and, who value the sanctity and inviolability and autonomy of the American citizen, and, who value the core precepts of our Bill of Rights, and who seek to reverse the trend of Government to usurp power beyond the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, and who seek to reverse the trend of Government to exert unlawful power over the lives of the citizenry, must work, together, to foster in all Americans a renewed respect for the Nation’s Bill of Rights. {Inference, derived from Premise (42)}
44. Working, together, toward the realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity will accomplish more than mere strengthening of the Bill of Rights; it will offset the machinations of those forces in this Country and outside it that seek to undermine the foundation of this Country as an Independent, Sovereign Nation and as a Free Republic, wherein the citizen stands supreme, and wherein government has no purpose but to serve at the behest of and at the pleasure of the People. {Inference, derived from Premise (43)}
45. The realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is an assertion of defiance against those among us who piously declare the sacred Second Amendment to be obsolete and who maintain the other nine Amendments to be malleable, subject to change or deletion in accordance with notions and values alien to this Nation, as our founders conceived and envisioned and implemented this Nation. {Postulate}
46. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity is a rejection of the current trend toward unlawful Government restrictions on, encroachment in, and unlawful interference with Americans' rights and liberties. {Inference, derived from Premise (45)}

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS’ PURSUIT OF RESTRAINTS ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL REFLECT IDEAS CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT HEREINABOVE MADE IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

Antigun groups, the mainstream media, left leaning legislators, and the shadowy group of powerful, ruthless internationalists that fund them will undoubtedly take exception with several of the propositions comprising our argument in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve at length into possible objections supporters of antigun measures might draw. But, we wish to mention one theme that pervades antigun thought.Antigun groups and those who support a weakened Second Amendment argue that the safety and well-being of the community take precedence over the safety and well-being of the individual. Antigun groups may not say this expressly, but their position on gun ownership and possession entails that conclusion. Antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors extol the virtue of the collective over the needs and aspirations and concerns of the individual. So, they look to ways in which society in general must curtail the rights and liberties of the individual in order—as they see it—to maintain the well-being of the greater society—of the hive.Restrictive gun laws gain their impetus through a theory of ethics called utilitarian consequentialism. That ethical theory is antithetical to the basic precepts of our Bill of Rights because it undercuts the notion that morality, a rational deontological ethical theory of good and evil, is based on the notion that a morally good act or a morally evil act is a product of an individual’s intentions and motives in acting, and not, as  antigun groups hold, based merely on the consequences of one’s actions—the impact a given action has on a community, irrespective of intention or motive behind a given act.So, for example, if a criminal happens to use a gun when committing a crime, the response of the antigun groups is to ignore the motive or intention of the sentient being in acting in the manner that he acted, but to emphasize merely the consequences of the act--the utility--good or bad that it has on the community as a whole. We see then, the antigun groups dealing with and emphasizing the implement used in the crime, rather than the nature of the individual who committed the crime. The common refrain we hear is: “we need to get rid of the gun” and, not, “let’s place these criminals in confinement where they will never again harm another individual.” By placing emphasis on the consequences of an act to the exclusion of the motive or intention of the actor, antigun groups draw attention away from the individual and onto the non-sentient object, the gun.Antigun groups and the billionaire internationalists that fund these groups, and that fund like-minded legislators look upon the individual in society as a component of an unruly mob, whose basic impulse is, as they see it, innately destructive, antithetical to the maintenance of an ordered society. Antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors perceive American society as a bee hive. The individual has value to self and to the greater hive only to the extent the individual’s actions are constrained and his actions benefit the hive, rather than himself. They believe that the individual qua individual citizen cannot be trusted and, so, must be carefully watched and controlled, always. By constraining a person's actions, antigun groups believe they are able to create a better society. Protecting the Second Amendment right of millions of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is not part of the agenda of those whose goal, ultimately, is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment simply has no import or purport in the kind of society envisioned by antigun groups.Antigun groups, the mainstream media, left-wing legislators and wealthy, powerful, ruthless internationalists enlist stories of misuse of firearms by psychopaths, psychotics, and terrorists, as the ground to restrict gun ownership and possession, affecting, then, millions of citizens—sane, rational, law-abiding Americans—predicated on misuse of guns by the few.Seen in this light, it becomes clear why antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors find the Second Amendment archaic and dangerous. Antigun groups, their supporters and benefactors invariably provide anecdotal accounts of misuses of firearms by the worst sort of individuals—criminals, lunatics, Islamic terrorists—to justify their assault on gun ownership and possession, thereby ignoring outright—deliberately ignoring—the millions of law-abiding gun owners who have never misused a firearm, and never will.Allowing the individual to own and possess firearms is, from the perspective of the antigun groups, contrary to the maintenance of an ordered society—contrary to an ordered and orderly hive.The argument for restrictive gun laws makes no sense except through the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism—an ethical theory that the founders of our Republic would discount and repudiate.Antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors have no regard for personal autonomy—the central unifying principal underlying and underscoring our Second Amendment, and, in fact, underscoring the entirety of our Bill of Rights. Thus, we would expect that antigun groups, the mainstream media, and the internationalist benefactors that fund them will attack vigorously, viciously, any attempt to realize national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.As foes of the Second Amendment, the antigun groups work tirelessly, unceasingly, rabidly toward constricting the Second Amendment. They obviously will not take kindly toward efforts to strengthen the Second Amendment. The Arbalest Quarrel will continue to explore the ideas raised in this article as we press the case for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. This will include an analysis of pending Congressional bills, directed toward national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.