In the gun control debate, the gun control advocates continuously argue that the police agencies of the federal government, local and state police should be armed with the very weapons that they argue should be banned for civilian use. The gun control advocates argue that the police need these weapons for self protection, but that, you, the citizen, because you are protected by the police, have no need for such weapons.
The question is, do the police of any jurisdiction have an obligation, duty, or other responsibility to you as a citizen to protect you from criminal violence? In other words, does the public police agency’s alleged duty to “protect and serve” substitute for your constitutional right to self protection by use of a firearm?
In its December, 2012 ruling, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. The court further reinforced Heller by finding that one’s Second Amendment right extended to carry beyond the home:
“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense.”
The fact that the 7th Circuit’s ruling found the Illinois ban on concealed carry unconstitutional and that the right of self protection with a firearm extends beyond the home to wherever one might be is the beginning of the end for any local or State law that bans concealed carry or disallows use of a firearm for self protection.
We know that we have a Second Amendment right to self protection with a firearm. We know that right extends beyond the home. Yet, the gun control advocates maintain the lie that self protection using a firearm would promote vigilantism, rather than reliance upon the police.
The question is, can we rely upon the police to protect us?
In Castle Rock, CO, a woman took out a restraining order against her estranged husband. The husband took her three kids and killed them, then committed suicide. She had requested that the Castle Rock PD find her husband and recover the kids, because she believed him to be violent and a threat to her and the children. The restraining order stated a mandatory arrest take place, should the order be violated. SCOTUS found that she had no right to expect other than what the Castle Rock, CO police did, which was, effectively, nothing.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 765:
“Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders "mandatory" because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. . . The serving of public rather than private ends is the normal course of the criminal law because criminal acts, "besides the injury [they do] to individuals, . . . strike at the very being of society; which cannot possibly subsist, where actions of this sort are suffered to escape with impunity." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 5 (1769) . . . “
In 1981, in Washington, D.C., two men forcefully entered an apartment, and robbed and raped the occupants of the apartment repeatedly over a several hour period. During the course of the afternoon, the victims were able to call the DC Metro police several times and requested police assistance. The police came several times, but did not get out of their car, and continued on their way. Warren v. District of Columbia reflects the government’s duty to the citizen.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A. 2d, 1 (1981 D.C.):
“. . . In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No.796 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists . . . The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”
Key words: “ . . . when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes only a duty to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.” The “personal benefit” has to accrue because of some special relationship, such as when a person steps forward as an informer and the police guarantee the informer protection in return for the information gained from the relationship. In other words, the police have no duty to respond or to ‘protect and serve’, in other than the greater ‘good’ context.
Sheriff David Clark, Jr., Milwaukee County, WI, stirred up a hornet’s nest when he made a public service announcement about self protection. Clark’s full PSA statement:
“I’m Sheriff David Clark and I want to talk to you about something personal, your safety. It is no longer a spectator sport. I need you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer an option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?”
In 2004, then Illinois Senator Barrack Hussein Obama voted against a measure before the Illinois legislature that would have allowed a citizen the right to use a firearm for self protection in their own home when under jeopardy of death by a criminal. He voted to allow the residents of Illinois to be victims of criminal assault without the ability to defend themselves and their family. Now, he is President and is moving to continue his socialist agenda to end our Second Amendment right to self protection using a firearm.
The idea of gun control violates our constitutional rights.
Whether you agree with the Second Amendment or not, you have that right to self protection using a firearm.
Government has no right to determine the type or capacity of the firearm you choose for self protection. The only qualifications put forth by the SCOTUS under Heller is that the firearm and configuration must be “in common use” and not be “dangerous” or “unusual”. All weapons are dangerous, so the real qualification is “unusual”.
Rather than be distracted by the emotional chaff of the call to ban certain firearms, the question that Americans must ask themselves is why this President, Senator Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo, and the gun control lobby want Americans disarmed, if the police have no obligation to protect or to come to the aid of you and your family?
Legal precedent is clear: there is no obligation on the part of the police to protect you.
You have the right under Second Amendment to self protection with a firearm. You have an obligation and duty to be responsible to protect yourself and your family. In the face of increasing cuts in government services, this right and duty is an obligation that you cannot shirk. Sheriff Clark made his PSA, because his department had to cut 26 deputies. Unlike the municipal police chief, sheriffs are elected officials and are responsible to their constituents. Cuts in public safety are happening all over America. You can either do your duty to yourself and your family, or suffer in fear of an attack by criminals.
Take a defensive handgun course, go shoot an AR15 at a local range if you are unfamiliar with the weapon, and vote out those politicians who would prefer the criminal be armed.
For more information:
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Constitution of the State of Alaska:
Article 1 §19:
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.
D.C. v. Heller, 478 F3d 370
SCOTUS Heller decision from Cornell University Law School:
Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Estimates on the number of AR15 rifles in private ownership
FBI Unified Crime Report 2011:
FBI crime report tables, note: click on the table number to see the table you are interested in viewing.