That’s the title at Slate, because Mark Joseph Stern thinks he has found out that progressive judges have finally found a use for the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.  After a silly and emotional (and factually incorrect) diatribe against the Bruen decision, he says this.

What’s a progressive judge to do? Public defenders have already offered an answer: employ the Second Amendment in furtherance of progressive constitutional values like equal protection and the rights of criminal defendants. Because so many high-profile gun cases are manufactured by conservative activists—including this one—it’s easy to forget who’s really on the front lines of the Second Amendment revolution: criminal defense attorneys representing indigent clients charged with firearm offenses. (It’s telling that one Biden appointee who joined the majority in Range, Arianna Freeman, spent her entire legal career as a federal public defender.) Public defenders have a Sixth Amendment obligation to provide their clients with a zealous defense, which increasingly includes constitutional challenges to gun restrictions.

That’s why New York City’s public defenders filed a brief in Bruen urging the Supreme Court to strike down nearly all limitations on public carry. And it’s why the 3^rd Circuit’s top public defenders—Freeman’s former colleagues—filed a similar brief in Range attacking the federal felon-in-possession ban. The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions all envision “law-abiding, responsible citizens” who seek to protect themselves and their families from violence. But in the real world, the people who have the most to gain from these rulings are criminal defendants facing down years or decades in prison. Recent decisions establishing a right to scratch out a gun’s serial number and purchase a firearm while under indictment or restraining order all arose out of criminal prosecutions, not NRA-backed test cases.

Like a growing number of public defenders, liberal judges like Freeman, Ambro, Greenaway, and Montgomery-Reeves may think that the Second Amendment can be repurposed as a weapon against over-policing and mass incarceration. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Range will certainly be a boon to the criminal defense bar, as well as a source of immense confusion for prosecutors. The majority’s standard is extraordinarily vague: It acknowledges that some people may be disarmed for committing a felony, but a person “like Range” could not. How can judges tell when someone falls on Range’s side of the line? The majority didn’t say. In 2019, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett took a stab at a clearer standard, asserting that only “dangerous” and “violent felons” may be disarmed. But which crimes count as “violent”? Is selling or using cocaine “violent”? How about possessing child pornography? Drunk driving? Burglary? Harassment? In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court found it impossible to give the term “violent felony” a “principled and objective” standard. Why should courts have any more luck today?

This uncertainty would force prosecutors to think twice before bringing felon-in-possession charges, asking first whether they could persuade a court that the defendant is sufficiently “dangerous” or “violent” or “non-law-abiding” to justify disarmament. And from a criminal justice reform perspective, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of left-leaning commentators have argued that the felon-in-possession ban is disproportionately enforced against people of color, contributing to mass incarceration and persecution of minority communities. For many progressives, these problems raise concerns about equal protection, unlawful policing, and unconstitutional sentences. But this Supreme Court doesn’t see them that way; it cares far more about gun rights than traditional civil rights, such as basic civic equality of Black Americans. So progressive judges may instead seek to use the Second Amendment as a stand-in for constitutional principles that SCOTUS has abandoned.

That’s a lot to unpack and I haven’t the time to fisk it all.  He makes many mistakes, including the assumption that the NRA is a gun rights organization.  As we’ve pointed out many times before, they were in favor of NFA, GCA, the completely unconstitutional Hughes Amendment, the original AWB, the bump stock ban, red flag laws, and a host of other liberty-infringing laws and regulations.  The sooner we can move the NRA out of the way, the sooner we can begin to restore our liberties.  Because pols turn to them for views and approval, they are like a ball and chain attached to us.

Other false assumptions might be that advocates of liberty would somehow be opposed to a turnaround in mass incarceration and over-policing.  Look no further than this web site for advocacy of this recent third circuit ruling, including your truly and all of the commenters.  And even a cursory look at our police category proves that we are against over-policing.  The writer is confusing lovers of liberty with the advocacy of modern incarnation and reflexive “conservative” cop-advocacy.  Here, think Bill Barr, who defended Lon Horiuchi.

His is a very dated view.  He lumps us in with folks who think nothing like us.  I don’t believe in incarceration as it is currently conceived anyway, i.e., as effectual for redemptive and rehabilitative purposes.  Put simply, I don’t believe in imprisonment.  Per the Biblical paradigm, I believe in slavery to pay debts, and capital punishment for capital crimes such as rape, kidnapping and murder.  There is absolutely no good reason, and by the way, no Biblical justification, for charging a man with the carry of a weapon if he commits some other crime, regardless of whether he had approval from a state permitting schema.  Charge him for the crime he committed, not ownership of weapons.  If you wonder what modern gun owners think about this view, look to the guys at Reddit/Firearms, who completely support this decision as do we.  Gun control laws are infringements – full stop.

But that’s not the end of the conversation, you see.  Because if by over-policing the writer at Slate means the arrest of the Antifa protesters in Portland, Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, and elsewhere, we disagree with him.  More to the point, liberty means the right to defend yourself and your loved ones.  It means the right to shoot people who endanger your life and the lives of your loved ones.  As I have told my wide when she had to drive in Charlotte several years ago when this was all going down, if you’re on John Belk Freeway (I-277) and Antifa protesters block the way and start beating on cars (like they did at least once), run them over, and kill them if you must.

That road is like a moat.  It’s walled on both sides for miles, and the only opportunity for egress to protect your life is finding one of the few exits and getting out of the city.  Liberty doesn’t mean allowing communists agitators to rape you, kidnap you, steal from you or damage your property, or take your life.  It means defending against all of that, including with weapons of your choice.

Mr. Stern is a controller and finds it so remarkable that mass incarceration might suffer a blow from this decision that it’s worth an article.  Join the club, Mark, albeit a bit late.  I don’t believe men should go to prison for ownership of weapons either.  We don’t like the controllers any more than you do.  But be careful what you wish for.  When I say we don’t like the controllers, that also means we don’t like their agitators and instigators and believe we have rights against their methods and intentions – without interference from the controllers.

It’s fascinating to me that this country is finally figuring out what the second amendment is all about.

Decision.

The material facts are undisputed. In 1995, Range pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 481(a). In those days, Range was earning between $9.00 and $9.50 an hour as he and his wife struggled to raise three young children on $300 per week. Range’s wife prepared an application for food stamps that understated Range’s income, which she and Range signed. Though he did not recall reviewing the application, Range accepted full responsibility for the misrepresentation. Range was sentenced to three years’ probation, which he completed without incident. He also paid $2,458 in restitution, $288.29 in costs, and a $100 fine. Other than his 1995 conviction, Range’s criminal history is limited to minor traffic and parking infractions and a summary offense for fishing without a license. When Range pleaded guilty in 1995, his conviction was classified as a Pennsylvania misdemeanor punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. That conviction precludes Range from possessing a firearm because federal law generally makes it “unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

[ … ]

… the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is as expansive as it is vague. Who are “law-abiding” citizens in this context? Does it exclude those who have committed summary offenses or petty misdemeanors, which typically result in a ticket and a small fine? No. We are confident that the Supreme Court’s references to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” do not mean that every American who gets a traffic ticket is no longer among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps, then, the category refers only to those who commit “real crimes” like felonies or felony-equivalents? At English common law, felonies were so serious they were punishable by estate forfeiture and even death. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 54 (1769). But today, felonies include a wide swath of crimes, some of which seem minor.5 And some misdemeanors seem serious.6 As the Supreme Court noted recently: “a felon is not always more dangerous than a misdemeanant.” Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2020 (2021) (cleaned up). As for the modifier “responsible,” it serves only to undermine the Government’s argument because it renders the category hopelessly vague. In our Republic of over 330 million people, Americans have widely divergent ideas about what is required for one to be considered a “responsible” citizen. At root, the Government’s claim that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from “the people.” We reject that approach because such “extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.” Folajtar, 980 F.3d at 912 (Bibas, J., dissenting). And that deference would contravene Heller’s reasoning that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” 554 U.S. at 636; see also Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2131 (warning against “judicial deference to legislative interest balancing”). In sum, we reject the Government’s contention that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are counted among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny lead us to conclude that Bryan Range remains among “the people” despite his 1995 false statement conviction.

That he made a false statement in order to obtain food stamps is an absurd reason to effect a prohibition on firearms ownership. We in America suffer from death by a thousand cuts.  It was reversed like it should have been by the Third Circuit.

Survival Blog.

“Administration and character of Eutropius, A.D. 395-399:

The first events of the reign of Arcadius and Honorius are so intimately connected, that the rebellion of the Goths and the fall of Rufinus have already claimed a place in the history of the West. It has already been observed that Eutropius, one of the principal eunuchs of the palace of Constantinople, succeeded the haughty minister whose ruin he had accomplished and whose vices he soon imitated. Every order of the state bowed to the new favourite; and their tame and obsequious submission encouraged him to insult the laws, and, what is still more difficult and dangerous, the manners of his country. Under the weakest of the predecessors of Arcadius the reign of the eunuchs had been secret and almost invisible. They insinuated themselves into the confidence of the prince but their ostensible functions were confined to the menial service of the wardrobe and Imperial bedchamber. They might direct in a whisper the public counsels, and blast by their malicious suggestions the fame and fortunes of the most illustrious citizens; but they never presumed to stand forward in the front of empire, or to profane the public honours of the state. Eutropius was the first of his artificial sex who dared to assume the character of a Roman magistrate and general. Sometimes, in the presence of the blushing senate, he ascended the tribunal to pronounce judgment or to repeat elaborate harangues; and sometimes appeared on horseback, at the head of his troops, in the dress and armour of a hero. The disregard of custom and decency always betrays a weak and ill-regulated mind; nor does Eutropius seem to have compensated for the folly of the design by any superior merit or ability in the execution. His former habits of life had not introduced him to the study of the laws or the exercises of the field; his awkward and unsuccessful attempts provoked the secret contempt of the spectators; the Goths expressed their wish that such a general might always command the armies of Rome; and the name of the minister was branded with ridicule, more pernicious, perhaps, than hatred to a public character. The subjects of Arcadius were exasperated by the recollection that this deformed and decrepit eunuch, who so perversely mimicked the actions of a man, was born in the most abject conditions of servitude; that before he entered the Imperial palace he had been successively sold and purchased by an hundred masters, who had exhausted his youthful strength in every mean and infamous office, and at length dismissed him in his old age to freedom and poverty. While these disgraceful stories were circulated, and perhaps exaggerated, in private conversations, the vanity of the favourite was flattered with the most extraordinary honours. In the senate, in the capital, in the provinces, the statues of Eutropius were erected, in brass or marble, decorated with the symbols of his civil and military virtues, and inscribed with the pompous title of the third founder of Constantinople. He was promoted to the rank of patrician, which began to signify, in a popular and even legal acceptation, the father of the emperor: and the last year of the fourth century was polluted by the consulship of an eunuch and a slave. This strange and inexpiable prodigy awakened, however, the prejudices of the Romans. The effeminate consul was rejected by the West as an indelible stain to the annals of the republic; and without invoking the shades of Brutus and Camillus, the colleague of Eutropius, a learned and respectable magistrate, sufficiently represented the different maxims of the two administrations.”  – Edward Gibbon, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Chapter 32

Effeminate Eunuchs.  Does this sound as if it could be written about the current ruling caste of America today?

This seems like a fair test for a run of the mill shotgun with offhand shooting.  I don’t think it’s a fair test of more expensive shotguns or guns that have been modified and adjusted for distance.

Most shotgun manufacturers have much longer barrels, and trying different chokes would have helped with his shot spread.  Beretta has a longer barrel “forcing cone” than other tactical shotguns, and using different ammunition might have helped (e.g., Federal FliteControl).

So if I wanted distance versus a more portable close quarters battle shotgun, I’d install a 32″ competition barrel and use different ammunition.  I’m willing to bet that he could land pellets at 100 yards.  I wouldn’t want to get hit by a 9mm bullet at any range, including 100 yards.

By the way, I think he meant to say Vang Comp.

American Rifleman.

The .444 Marlin was a brainchild of Marlin employees Thomas Robinson and Arthur Burns. They made the first cases from unfinished .30-06 Sprg. brass before it was necked down and the rim turned to its final diameter. Burns presented prototype ammunition and a rifle chambered for it to Earl Larson at Remington, and since an official name for the cartridge had yet to be decided on, the first test ammunition loaded by Remington was head-stamped “.44 Mag”, because that bunter was on hand. It was later changed to “444 Marlin.” The ammunition featured the same 240-grain bullet being loaded by Remington in the .44 Mag.

Advertised velocity was 2,400 f.p.s., reduced to 2,350 f.p.s. soon after the barrel of the Model 444 rifle was shortened to 22”. The 240-grain bullet proved to be sudden death on deer, but elk and moose hunters desired more penetration on quartering shots, so in 1982, a 265-grain soft point at 2,120 f.p.s. was added. It was discontinued around 2010, but has returned to the Remington Express ammunition lineup with an average velocity of 2,239 f.p.s. from my rifles. Demand for the .444 Marlin increased when several shotgun-only states legalized the use of certain straight-wall centerfire cartridges.

The .444 Marlin is often incorrectly described as a lengthened version of the .44 Mag. The two cartridges do share the same rim and bullet diameters, but body diameter just forward of the extraction groove of factory ammo usually measures 0.464” to 0.467” for the .444 Marlin and 0.451” to 0.453” for the .44 Mag. SAAMI maximum chamber diameter for the .444 Marlin is 0.4747” so firing the .44 Mag. in a .444 Marlin rifle could result in a ruptured case and should not be done.

It would be interesting if Marlin came out with a new Model 444, but given the similarity of this cartridge with the 45-70, it may not happen.

See also Chuck Hawks, and American Hunter.

Source.

House Bill 3571 passed both Houses this past week with Senate Floor Amendment 1.

SA1 permits counties and municipalities to hire non-citizens as deputy sheriffs and police officers in the same manner as hiring U.S. citizens, as long as they are: “legally authorized under federal law to work in the United States and is authorized under federal law to obtain, carry, or purchase or otherwise possess a firearm, or who is an individual against whom immigration action has been deferred by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process and is authorized under federal law to obtain, carry, or purchase or otherwise possess a firearm”

What this means in Illinois, is that you may soon see non-US citizens wearing police badges …

People who have no cultural tradition or history with this country may soon hold arrest powers in Illinois.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t also happen in Dearborn, and many other cities across the nation.

They must be very proud in Heyburn, Idaho.  They’ve managed to get the lowest of the low, the most uneducated, the most dangerous and sociopathic, the absolute worst possible people anywhere to be cops.  Is it any wonder cops are hated everywhere now?

Another question might be this: Who ordered this killing?  What is his name and rank, and why wasn’t be brought up on charges along with the cops who did this?

The cop(s) ought to be charged with: (1) reckless endangerment, (2) reckless discharging of a firearm, (3) cruelty to animals, (4) theft of property under color of law (the dogs were probably someone’s property).

There are many ways to, in Mike Vanderboegh’s words, “Lose the mandate of Heaven.”  It seems modern American law enforcement wants to find and effect every single one of them.

I was at a community event last night which included fireworks, and one dog bolted as soon as the fireworks started. A lot of dogs are very frightened of fireworks. We knew, sort of, where the dog took off to, and I spent a good deal of time late last night with tactical lights walking through woods helping the dog’s owner search for him, while I also prayed that we could find the dog before he had to tangle with the Coyotes. We found him late last night. I guess that’s the difference between someone who cares and someone who doesn’t. One searches for lost dogs. Others shoot them for fun.

Also note, this is merely training for them. If they’ll shoot dogs with such callous disregard, they’ll do it to you too. I’ve said many times before, you’re never in more danger than when the cops are around. I guess this is true for dogs too. And I’m wondering since this cop loves shooting dogs so much, if he’s not a good candidate for ATF agent?

Via WiscoDave.

Idaho police officer shot two dogs, retrievers, for being near the highway. The officer was placed on leave and is under investigation.pic.twitter.com/1bq5lOO6ny

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) June 4, 2023

Outdoor Life has a great article on various sorts  and bullet weights and types of 5.56 ammo.  I won’t lift a lot of prose out of the article, and you’re recommended to read his view of .223 and 5.56mm interchangeability.  The summary list of ammo follows.

• Best Overall: Black Hills Ammo 5.56mm NATO MK 262 MOD 1-C
• Best Value: Freedom Munitions .223 69-grain HPBT Match
• Most Accurate: Nosler Match Grade .223 77-grain Custom Competition BTHP
• Best for Larpers: Lake City 5.56mm NATO M855 Ball, 62-grain Green Tip
• Best for Varmints: Freedom Munitions .223 55-grain V-Max
• Best for Deer: Remington Premier .223 55-grain Accutip
• Best Lead-Free Ammo: Nosler .223 55-grain Expansion Tip
• Best Ball Ammo: Winchester USA Target .223 55-grain FMJ
• Best for Shooting Steel: Freedom Munitions .223 42-grain Zinc-core FMJ

Match Ammo

• Black Hills Ammo .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking
• Remington Premier Match .223 77-grain Sierra Matchking
• Remington Premier Match .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking
• Federal Gold Medal Match .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking 
• Hornady .223 75-grain BTHP Match
• Winchester Match .223 69-grain Sierra Matchking

Hunting and Defensive Ammo

• Black Hills Ammo .223 62-grain Barnes TSX
• Hornady Black 5.56mm NATO 75-grain Interlock
• Nosler .223 55-grain Ballistic Tip Varmint
• Winchester Varmint X .223 40-grain Polymer Tip
• Hornady Critical Defense .223 73-grain FTX

I don’t necessarily agree with everything on the list (e.g., I find Winchester ammunition to be quite dirty).  I would also add to the list (e.g., I find PMC ammunition to be relatively inexpensive and good range ammo, and it’s not on the list).

However, this is shooter’s choice.  If you have a favorite for some purpose, drop a comment including a URL.

Some reminders, foundational instruction for us, and a few points of core importance to the Christian faith are set forth. Parts of this may appear as a simple Sunday School lesson to some, but we often meet folks who lack these baseline principles of the workings of God. As you read, some meat may be found in opening the Scripture and examining the context surrounding the cited verses.

Where Deuteronomy in the Old Testament is the foremost book of the law doctrine given to Moses, the book of Romans is the primary book on the New Covenant doctrine of grace by faith in Christ. Hebrews has much weight to lend to these foundational principles by showing how the Old Testament law of sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ, but it’s Romans to the mind of the man in the new birth through faith in Christ Jesus, that must be studied and understood to know the full import of faith by grace in Christ’s atoning death, burial, and resurrection.

We’ll look at several sections in Romans bringing three vital truths.

The Reward of Debt or of Grace.

“4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” – Romans 4:4-5

The reward is the consideration in repayment, but Christ is the final and full payment to Holy God for your sin. To those who seek or attempt to maintain soul salvation by works of their own doing, they are not under grace but debt. You could read this burden as debt after faith because you love God for saving your soul by faith, but though we commend the believer’s service, that’s not what is meant in verse 4. Verse five is included for context.

The debt spoken of is sin debt to God, as though a man were worthy to offer up to God anything to repay God for violation of His holy law. (See Romans 11:6.) If you try to work your way into heaven, you make the grace of God through the offering of His own Son of no effect, having rejected Christ’s humiliation in offering Himself on your behalf. I greatly fear the end of these men.

Works salvation is an impossibility in the first place because God already owns you (Ezekiel 18:4), and all things you have or could ever give are His granted to you. A man has nothing to give because all of creation is God’s! That’s why the blood of bulls or goats could never fully satisfy God’s wrath for sin but only put it off temporarily (Hebrews 10:4). Though you kill a thousand fine heifers, the justification for sin was always through faith.

But most importantly, and the doctrinal point of Romans chapter 4, is that no man shall be justified except by faith in Jesus Christ. It’s Christ’s work, His atonement fulfilling the promise of faith given to Abraham, the father of our faith. The assurance was not given for creating heirs through the law of Moses (Deuteronomy) by works but through the righteousness of faith. If the heirs of the kingdom were by the law, then the law of grace is void and of no effect, and you remain lost to burn for eternity.

“13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect” – Romans 4:13-14

But righteousness was not imputed to Abraham alone. It is written to us in the Old Testament and New Testament that by faith alone, those who would come to Christ, who is the justifier of all, shall be justified; for none other, including any works of our own at all, can justify.

How is a man justified? Speaking of Abraham: “23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” – Romans 4:23-25

There is a chapter break after Romans 4 and verse 25, but the rounding out and summarizing statement of Chapter 4 is in verse 1 of Chapter five, and we’ll include verse two for context: “1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” – Romans 5:1-2

Therefore, since the justification of the ungodly (sinner) is by faith and not repayment through works or human activity of any kind, we stand fast in the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. We pray you never lose sight of the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.

Sin By One and Atonement By One

Next, Romans 5:12 is a verse we often cite in many circumstances. It points back to the fall, where sin entered into the world, and evil becomes inherited by all men, for all men sin and die.

Adam is a figure of Jesus but only in federal headship over all men. We understand that you didn’t make Adam your federal head, but that’s just tough; the sooner you get over the fact that you’re not God and He is, the better everything will become for you and your civilization. The number of humanist Christians is alarming, if they’re actually converted by Christ, which we doubt.

In the single offense of unrighteousness, Adam, in violation of God’s holy ordinance in the covenant He made, came sin and death, both of which passed to all men. But, the figure of Adam is only in that universal imputation; through one (Adam) was sin ascribed to all, and therefore death passes upon all men.

In Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the covenant of God, that forgiveness by the grace of God might pass to all men by faith in Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all, fulfilling God’s plan according to the many prophecies of Scripture, and testified of today by those who know Him as the true and living King. Christ alone is the federal head of salvation from the sin you inherited. There are two inheritances; eternal life or eternal damnation.

“15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.” – Romans 5:15-16

The purpose of the law in the New Covenant

Another concept of Romans is essential and often misunderstood by modern evangelicals, believers of many stripes, and unbelievers. The notion that the law is of no use today and contrary to the purposes of the Christian in service to our Lord, drawing his family nigh to the throne of God, is wrong. Also, the law of God must serve as societal and governmental boundaries for the man, the body of Christ, the family, and the entire nation.

“11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Romans 7:11-12

Sin, when seen in the light of the law in the word of God, makes our sinful condition apparent. It’s not the law that causes death but the sin that the law reveals. The law of God is still perfect, holy, and just. Sin deceives us, and we deceive ourselves in sin, attempting to blame God for the perfection of His commands. And often, we are brought into thinking we’re not sinful, it doesn’t matter, or that somehow we are self-justified in our words or deeds. We also point out that the grace of God found in Christ is not license to sin.

When a man says he hates God’s law or even simply rejects it, he is, in fact, saying that the Holy Bible has revealed his sin, and he doesn’t know how to deal with that knowledge. This is an opportunity to understand the grace of God in the New Covenant; it was never the law that saved, but only faith. If you’re reading this and struggle with faith in God, understand that the rules outlined in the Holy Bible are not, and never were, designed to free you or put you in a forgiven position with God. Yes, indeed, the law of God is binding, and that’s the point; you need the grace of God to bring forgiveness for your inability to keep any set of rules, let alone the perfect letter of the highest and holy law in creation set forth by our heavenly Creator.

You need Jesus Christ, for He paid through obedience where you never could or ever will. Have the faith that Christ’s obedience today stands good for you before Holy God; make your covenant with Jesus to belong to Him. No amount of religious law or ceremony will save your soul; you must be Christ’s.

It’s by the ordinance that we know sin even today. When the Spirit of God convicts a sinner, be it unto initial salvation or working in the soul unto consecration, all instances have a related section of the law that has been trampled.

Again, by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). No man is justified in keeping the law, for he cannot maintain the whole, but justification comes only by faith in Christ and Him crucified.

Verse 7 of Romans seven offers the example; thou shalt not covet. The cravings men claim in their desires they self-justify as requirements all day long, seeking that which is not only unnecessary but sinful or wicked. In our nature, we sin, having no knowledge that these lusts are wrong until the law is revealed by Scripture or Spirit. God’s holy law is good and does not kill. But the sin that the law reveals in us shows the end in us, which is death (Romans 6:23). Perfect obedience is not the point, but the fear of God by awareness of sin through knowledge of the law brings us to function in the service of Christ.

Believers today also fail God when they reject the law because they don’t allow it to convict them that they might purge their sins, one by one, being set apart now, drawing ever closer to the Holy One. Having first received the law of grace, the law in ordinances is an aid in refining the man that he be made worthy to carry the title of Christian, by faith, belonging to Christ as his King, and having no other.

Where the law of commandments is the conviction for sin, the law of grace is not allowance of sin, but forgiveness from sin. The law of God is the conviction of sin unto death; the law of grace is the mercy of God unto eternal life.

The maturing Christian comes to love the law of God, for it points out our weakness, enlightening the eyes to just how holy our Creator and Redeemer truly is; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous by any measure of depth or breadth. The law points us to our need for Christ to grow ever closer to Him. The law directs us to understand our wicked ways so that we might be active participants in the purging of our sins, for it’s sin that separates the man from his God. And the law of the Lord is perfect to convert the sinner to walk in the love and light of Jesus Christ our Lord by faith alone. The law only ever pointed to the grace of Christ by faith in Him.