FROM THE RIGHT
By Bill Moore
We consistently hear from Liberals how they need to take away our weapons or severely limit the types of weapons we can buy. In addition they want to limit the types of ammunition and accessories a gun owner can purchase.
Admittedly if the Government could be trusted not to use registration and background checks as a political weapon, I might be more sympathetic to these solutions to ensure weapons do not fall into the hands of someone who is mentally unstable. However, we have ample evidence to the contrary. The Leadership in government has used many pieces of information as weapons to spy or try to influence our behaviors. A prime example is the IRS targeting Conservative Groups. In addition, we all know people who will use weapons for illegal actions and will not follow the law in acquiring them.
Another argument used is that the Police are there to protect you so you do not need a weapon. I have several points to discuss about that argument. First, if there is an invader in your home and you actually can get an opportunity to call 911, the wait time can be 5 to 10minutes in a city or up to 20 minutes in a rural area. Do you really want to allow that invader that much time to do whatever damage they can do to you and your family? Obviously, someone trained in the use of a gun can minimize what might happen to your family. Sounds like a no brainer so far.
My second point traces back to June 2005. The Supreme Court issued a ruling that directly affects waiting for the Police. A woman had sued a town in Colorado for failing to respond to her plea for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order and kidnapped their three children. He eventually killed the children. She had pleaded with the Police to find her husband and the children as he had violated a court order to stay 100 yards away from the family. The children were 7, 9 and 10. He called his wife to tell her he had the kids at an amusement park. She relayed the information to the police who failed to act. Her husband eventually showed up at the police station with the dead bodies of the kids in his car. He was killed in a gun battle with the police.
She sued arguing that the protective order instructed the police ” you shall arrest “so they needed to arrest him or at least issue a warrant for his arrest. The14th amendment was the basis for the suit since the police denied her the right to “due process.” She argued that the protective order gave her a “property interest” covered by the 14th amendment’s due process clause.
The Supreme Court ruled against the woman. Justice Scalia wrote, in the majority opinion, the woman did not have a “property interest” that was protected by the 14th Amendment. In addition, he pointed out that “even though there was a mandate to arrest or issue an arrest warrant, there also existed a well established tradition of police discretion that coexists with mandatory arrest warrants.” In other words the Police have no constitutional duty to protect you.
In an earlier ruling from 1989, the Supreme Court had ruled that a social worker had no constitutional duty to protect a young boy from beatings by his father.
I am a major supporter of the Police and this article is not designed to detract from the great work they do. However, it does point out another reason for keeping arms and to protect the Second Amendment as written. According to this Supreme Court ruling, it clearly implies that the only one with a mandate to protect yourself and your family is YOU.
Thank God and the Founders for the 2nd Amendment!!!!!