A buddy of mine forwarded me a link to a Fox news article that I thought was worth sharing.
Basically, though most of us THINK that we have the Constitutional right to City, Municipality, County, or State police protection, we truly don’t, as proven by several court cases:
<snip>… a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”</snip>
I’ve always been a proponent of the right to keep and bear arms. Do I carry daily? No. However, I feel that if I don’t have a Constitutional right to police protection, then I should have the right to carry when I feel the need to do so; particularly if I lived in an area where there was violent crime being committed near me. Do you disagree?
When I go camping, I always like to take at least one firearm with me into the wild. It just makes sense. There is no one to come help you if you need it…and taking responsibility for one’s own personal safety is paramount to a long, happy life. And, if you get lost, you can always fire shots to alert would-be rescuers. To me, it just makes sense.
Recently, Arizona signed a law that allows citizens to carry a firearm on them, concealed, without having a license to do so. A step in the right direction, I think. If I decide to go down to a crummy area and want to carry a firearm for protection if I need it, I don’t necessarily want to have it flopping around on my belt, alerting the would-be criminal how to change his strategy, and possibly giving the would-be criminal the ability to use my own weapon against me. To me, that doesn’t make sense. Keeping a weapon concealed until needed makes perfect sense to me.
Now, if EVERY person was, though some strange law, REQUIRED to carry a concealed weapon of some sort, do you think the violent crimes would increase or decrease? Seems to me that the people who commit crimes would continue to commit them, until they got shot one day by someone protecting themselves. As a result, wouldn’t the crime rate decrease? Sure, this is a theory…and no real way to prove it without testing, but still…how likely would a criminal be to jump someone if they KNEW that their “prey” was also carrying a weapon, which could be used to kill them if they weren’t careful? I figure most would-be criminals would begin searching for a new career, frankly.
Anyway, here’s a link to the Fox news story about the woman who sued the police department because they failed to protect her, and lost the case, because the police have no constitutional requirement to protect private individuals: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html
What do you think?