DC's gun-ruling challenge could affect big cities

I phoned the Bureau of Firearms in Washington, DC within the past decade to learn that it was illegal to possess ANY FIREARM in the District of Columbia. I owned a hunting shotgun and phoned them to get it registered. They told me it was not possible to register any firearm in the District and to bring it down to have it destroyed. If it is infact, possible to possess a rifle or shotgun, why was I told that? Why was I not able to register the weapon?

The article in today's Trib, linked above, is fully up (or more precisely, down) to Swamp standards.

The headline is all about the gun-law challenge. But the reporter, Mr. Oliphant, doesn't bother to actually talk to the people and groups who brought the challenge.

Only one "gun-rights" advocate, Robert Levy, is quoted, a total of 7 words. By contrast, six "gun-rights" opponents are quoted a total of 90 words.

And the issue is framed as a matter of "pro-gun" groups versus "gun ban" groups, a wording and framing that (to say the least) is exactly the way haters of 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights would like to frame the issue.

This is "balanced reporting", Tribune style.

The 1st modifier to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitutional was a case in the 1930s where SCOTUS held that Government limitations of types of weapons (sawed off shotguns) was Constitutional.

This could get mighty interesting and will hinge on "well-regulated militia."

John W., wherever you are - what's your take on this?

Handguns should be banned, except for law enforcement. The 2nd Ammendment is outdated. Other countries have handgun bands & look at their murder rate compared to ours. And I'm not refering to Cuba.

I know this drives the - I should be able to carry an assault rifle in my fanny pack while attending a festival - crowd nuts, but who cares. My right to life rules over someone's right to own a handgun because its too easy for my life to end becasue of guns.

Sure, a car, a knife, a bat, a rock, etc, can kill me too, but no I have no chance agianst a bullet.

Our founding fathers wanted the militia to be able to keep their weapons in their homes. Do reasonable men think they put into the Constitution a rule to let all the nuts, brigands and highwaymen have guns. Watch "initial intent" be pushed aside as those activist, right wing Justices suck up to the NRA.

I am a big supporter of the 2nd amendment. We all have the right to bear arms, in my view that includes handguns. I don't think people should be allowed to own fire throwers or grenade launchers, but most guns should be allowed. Exceptions can and should be made for ex-cons, but I don't think anyone, even the NRA has a problem with that.

Think about it. According to the article the ban has been in place for 30 years and "After all, this is a city where gun crimes sometimes seem to be a staple of summer nights." So maybe the ban isn't working?

You could make the same case about the "war on drugs." Not working. Not even helping. All it does is imprison people who, at 40K a year for food, boarding and guarding, suck up tax dollars and mostly just learn to be better criminals.

"I don't think people should be allowed to own fire throwers or grenade launchers, but most guns should be allowed."

Hey, if you make owning a hand grenade criminal, only criminals will own hand grenades, right?

niseib, I think you've accidentally hit on a profound idea: rational drug laws (where they are taxed and regulated) would tend to dramatically reduce the turf wars drug gangs fight. Less to fight over should reduce the need for criminals to shoot each other.

According to the 2nd amendment: 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.

Depends on how you read it. One interpretation is that Because of the need of a militia, the PUBLIC shall have the right to bear arms. The 2nd approach is the Because of the need of a militia, members of the militia have the right to bear arms.

Regardless, Roman's plan of outlaw guns in general is a violation. Now you might say it is outdated, then call Jan S., Obama, Durbin or who ever and repeal the 2nd amendment. It is quite simple. But you cannot ignore it because you don't like it.

It wasn't an accident Weinerdog43. Drugs should be legalized, at least some of them should be.

Did you know it is easier for a 13 year old to get marijuana than it is for him/her to get alcohol? I don't have the research at my fingertips but a study was done a couple of years ago that proved that to be true. Why is it harder? Because alcohol is legal but legislated. Illegal drugs are sold by criminals, most of whom don't care who they sell too.

Our nations drug laws are a joke. They don't help anything. Many of the drugs we spend millions (billions?) trying to stop aren't as dangerous as legal drugs like Oxycontin.

It is not a simple issue. I don't think ALL drugs should be legal, but we do need a different approach.

That's the rub isn't it.? Where does the 2nd Amendment line get drawn, if at all?

When the Bill of Rights was enacted most Americans didn't own firearms. The ones that did had single shot muskets, and rarely pistols. The Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly imagined the advancements made in hand held weapons.

The 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. The language, I believe, is vague and contradictory. Two particular words/phrases come to mind: "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed".

If something is regulated, doesn't that, in some way, make it infringed?

While I lean quite liberal on many issues, I'm not convinced that banning guns is the right way to go.

First of all, it can not be a "one size fits all" mentality.

The demographics of an urban community vs a rural one, are quite different.

I have no problem with the tight gun laws of Chicago, where so many people live in close proximity, accidents would be commonplace if allowed in all hands.

I personally, do not, and would hope I will never feel the need to own a gun.

However, if some people live in such fear that they want to put their families lives at risk by having a gun in the home, so be it.

But it should be up to individual communities, and not federal law.

So I guess I break with some of my liberal colleagues there.

RomanB @ 11:59am:

Thanks for your insightful and intellectually stimulating addition to the discussion.

To me, this whole issue boils down to a matter of "How much individual freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to gain some dubious increase in public safety?"

Of course, there are things that individuals in any society have to sacrifice for the betterment of the group. Someone, is bound to ask "Is it actually a bona fide sacrifice for someone to relinquish lawful ownership of a handgun or other defensive weapon?" Of COURSE it's a sacrifice! All it takes is one person to honestly feel that way...that's why they are called "Individual Liberties." But in the case at hand (District of Columbia), it is uncertain whether gun bans (the cost of personal freedom), substantively or even actually contribute to lowered crime (the perceived public safety). Fenty says the DC ban saves lives...can he demonstrate that beyond reasonable doubt? It is theoretically possible but empirically improbable.

Should we not demand that public safety laws that limit individual freedom pass this kind of scrutiny/muster before enacting them? I think so...and it's my gut feeling that the majority of the SCOTUS will think so, as well.

This case will NOT hinge on "well-regulated militia"; this case will hinge on "reasonable restrictions."

Guns don`t kill people do. Why don`t we look at the real problem. To many uncivilized people let in this country.

Well just look at cities with the ban like Chicago and D.C. They are such a great exapmle of how succesful a handgun ban can be. Just like we are winning the war on drugs too. Give me a break. Owning a gun does not make you a bad person. The gangbangers seems to be getting them at the same rate as before the bans. Handgun bans have zero effect on violence. I understand banning ak's and the like but if I want to keep a 22 in my house i should be able to. There is a 99.9% chance that i will never have to use it, but what if one day you really do need it. Get the gov out of my life.

Maybe I should expound on why I say the case will NOT hinge on "well-regulated militia" and rather on "reasonable restrictions."

I say that primarily because it's spelled out in the District's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (I read the petition).

Based on the petition, the District placed passing little emphasis on their argument that the 2A protects individual rights ONLY in connection with an organized militia (i.e. that the right is a collective one). However and in contrast, they placed a great deal of emphasis on the history of firearm regulations in the district, and in arguing that handguns are particularly dangerous relative to other weapons (e.g. shotguns and rifles), and enumerated the various heinous ways in which handguns "cause" violence, suicide and accidental death. They went on to explain that handguns are by far the weapon of choice of criminals and that they are "almost exclusively" the weapon used in murders of law enforcement officers.

As an aside, it would have been interesting to see how they would have worded a parallel petition...namely, one that was asking for the overturn of a recently nullified ban on military style semi-automatic long guns (also confusingly known as "assault weapons").

Given what was present and emphasized in the petition, my general and over-riding impression is that the Discrict assumes that an individual right decision is a foregone conclusion...that the right to keep and bear arms is one of individual citizens, and that individual is so protected even without a connection to an organized militia. I could go on as to why it seems certain the SCOTUS will so rule...

The plaintiffs in this case (the District) are already beginning down the long and arduous road to argue that their ban is indeed a "reasonable restriction" on the individual right protected by the 2A, and that their "restriction" (which specifically is a prohibition - an outright ban on handguns) is reasonable because it is predicated on the practical grounds of enhancing public safety. That assertion is, of course and as I mentioned above, highly debatable (that handgun bans save lives in the District or anywhere else, as plaintiffs claim). I quite seriously think that these arguments might be an attempt to prime the court toward the goal of defining circumstances and characteristics whereby gun regulations are considered "reasonable." I trust that the court will consider degree of scrutiny....that is, that governments cannot ban guns (or other objects) just only because it is intuitively reasonable that such a ban will enhance public safety. That is to say, they may very well rule that such bans are reasonable but only after being scrutinized to a point where proponents of such a ban can overwhelmingly demonstrate that their proposed infringement on the 2A actually does what they claim it will do (that the bans and restrictions will indeed decrease crime).

That's why I so strongly feel that this case will hinge on "reasonable restrictions."

'Well Regulated' vs 'shall not be infringed' is not contradictory

Well regulated means that the states shall have the power to enact laws for the discipline, training, arming(not necessarily for the states to arm the militia but to describe what the militia-men should provide for themselves), appointment of officers, chains of command, etc of the militia.

The laws of the states prior to the ratification of the Constitution reflect this view. As an example, some states were quite specific in the minimum of what the militia-man was expected to appear bearing. A certain caliber rifle, a certain amount of ammunition, powder, etc. Officers might be expected to have in addition, a quality horse, as well as a pistol and maybe a saber.

These laws, nor the phrase 'well regulated' were not intended to be limits on the people. They were intended to establish order should the need arise to call upon the militia. Call up the militia without an established chain of command, a system of military justice, a minimum standard for arms and you've essentially summoned a mob lead by the loudest speaker.

'shall not be infringed' is pretty self explanatory, more so as it is preceded by 'the right of the People' not 'the right of the Militia' or 'the State'

Outright prohibitions on certain classes of firearms(Wilmette, Oak Brook, Federal AWB, Cook County AWB) or regulations that are impossible to comply with (Chicago, Washington DC) are quite obviously infringing upon 'the rights of the People'

A registration scheme, in and of itself, maybe, maybe not. Chicago/Washington DC most certainly would be because they refuse to accept a registration, regardless of the qualifications of the applicant. Registrations as done in other cities, perhaps not, providing the reasons to disqualify an applicant are clearly defined (felonies, domestic violence, habitual drug use) and not subject to the whims of an individual(as an example, the only way to get a CCW permit in some states is as a political favor from the Sherrif, or to be well connected...such as a wealthy entertainer, sports figure, etc)

Remember that the Founders were intelligent men. They knew the difference between States, People, Militia, and the US Government.

They also knew that what constituted 'arms' would change, which is why they used the term arms and not musket.
300 years before they lived, arms typically meant swords, axes, and bows. In the founders day, it was the flint-lock. Today of course, our modern decendants of the flint-lock(yes including handguns and dare I say it automatic firearms). In the future, if someone ever develops hand-held laser guns, then arms would include them as well.

Just a question to those of you who say handguns should be banned. The Supreme Court has already ruled that law enforcement agencies are not responsible for the protection of individuals. If law enforcement agencies are not responsible for your protection, and you are disarmed by a local gun ban, who is responsible to stop a criminal from attacking you?
I believe it is primarily my responsibility to protect myself and my family from attack. I believe that in order to effectively defend myself from an attacker that may be bigger, stronger, and possibly armed, I need the legal ability to arm myself, whether in my home or out in public (wherever an attack may occur). As a responsible gun owner, it is my responsibility to keep the gun safe and use it responsibly. It is my responsibility to make sure my children do not have easy access to the gun, and are educated on how and when a gun is to be used, and the consequences of such use. It is my responsibility to make sure a firearm is not easily stolen (much easier if I can keep it on my person rather than having to leave it at home when I go out). I am willing to accept those responsibilities. If you are not, then don't own a gun.
Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility, and those of us willing to accept the responsibility should be able to exercise the right. I hope the ruling in the DC gun ban case is heard and upheld by the Supreme Court. I hope they issue ruling for once and for all that gun ownership is an individual right protected, not granted, by the Second Amendment. I hope the majority of people in this city, state and country realize that guns are not the the cause of violent crime, but they can present responsible, law abiding citizens with the ability to defend themselves from violent crime. Use logic, do research and think as an individual and realize that in a free country our liberty is not protected by giving up essential rights like the right to keep and bear arms.

Just to demonstrate how easy it would be for reporter Oliphant to get both sides of the debate if he wanted to, I spent two minutes online and came up with the 2nd Amednment Foundation's response to the DC appeal. See
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=240

Swamp reporters won't present both sides, so someone has to...

In the founders day, it was the flint-lock. Today of course, our modern decendants of the flint-lock(yes including handguns and dare I say it automatic firearms). In the future, if someone ever develops hand-held laser guns, then arms would include them as well.

Posted by: Dave S | September 5, 2007 4:39 PM

RPG's? Mortars? Shoulder launched anti-air missles?

All are arms. Should all be legal for private ownership?

The 2nd amendment is outdated? Then so are the other bill of rights. Shall we dump the constitution so anarchy may rule? Our nation is founded by those bill of rights. Negating one is the same as negating them all.

There's quite a bit of sneering at the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" slogan, as well as at "guns don't kill, people do." But the 2000 U.N. victimization survey (http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm) suggests if not proves that it is the criminals' behavior and not firearm ownership that drives victimization. Also, that ownership of firearms tends to shift crime toward property and away from persons. I fail to see any downside to this. The founders of the U.S. realized correctly that private ownership of property was a key to creating an involved and responsible public, but it's only a half step if you don't also allow them to defend themselves and their property.

This case represents no danger to gun owners outside D.C.

If the court denies cert (doesn't hear the case) then the rule of law in the D.C. District is that people have the right to keep and bear arms. This also means those of us outside D.C. and other Federal districts/possessions can sue the Federal government in D.C. if they attempt to pass more gun laws like the recently deceased Federal "Assault" Weapon Ban. That is good new.

If the court grants cert and upholds the ruling, then we should have a pretty clear ruling regarding our Second Amendment rights. We can then attempt to work on Chicago and other non-federal places.

If the court grants cert and overrules the D.C. Appeals court, then D.C. gets to keep its gun ban.

However, we lose nothing as we currently don't have a recognized Second Amendment right currently. Despite this, most States recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Most people believe that and hold it dear which is why the Democrats lost a few elections. They are avoiding the topic like the plague. It is a loser electorally. I don't see States with liberal gun laws seeking to pass gun bans regardless of the outcome. I don't see Federal Senators and Representatives from regions that honor gun rights attempting to support gun bans either. They want to stay in office.

The long and short of this is that the real battle is in the legislature. Regardless of the outcome we need to keep up the pressure on our elected officials.

Guns don`t kill people do. Why don`t we look at the real problem. To many uncivilized people let in this country.

Posted by: John | September 5, 2007 3:19 PM
Good post John , your the first guy to nail it. I left the south side of Chicago and went to mid-coast Maine 10 years ago. There is no gun ban up here you can carry a weapon as long as it's in sight ,you can also get a conceal permit
if you wish. I believe we had a whopping 14 murders last year. To those of you who might say there's more people in Illinois than Maine, i say to you the differential is 12 million to almost two million, that would make it about 70 murders or so in Maine, if there were 12 million people here.

I accept that some weapons are simply too terrible to be possessed by anyone not subject to marshal law (i.e., the military). But I'm not willing to distinguish between private citizens versus civilian police. Police are supposed to be public servants, and it makes no sense that a servant may use a weapon that his masters are forbidden to possess. Such police are not public servants; they can only be viewed as servants of the rulers.

Political scientists define "government" as "that institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of deadly force." The sharing in this legitimate use of deadly force by private citizens is the essence of self-government. (It's certainly more meaningful than being able to select a temporary king from among two pre-selected candidates put before us.)

Should most private citizens be denied the right of armed self-defense, America would quickly become as dangerous as Russia or Jamaica.

"The Supreme Court has already ruled that law enforcement agencies are not responsible for the protection of individuals."

Posted by: Matt | September 5, 2007 5:23 PM

Then why do almost all communities have a phrase such as "To Serve And Protect" on their squad cars?

Please referrence the Supreme Court ruling in question to prove your point, because that doesn't make any sense.

That's like saying the Fire Dept. doesn't have the responsibility to put out fires.

Face it, Criminals will always have guns and will always commit crime. It boils down to whether you would rather stand there and let some scumbag murder you, or whether you value your personal safety and property enough to protect yourself with a formidable weapon. I for one choose to live and consider carrying a gun a no brainer. Something that the gun haters may not understand..48 states allow concealed carry of a deadly weapon.
Personally I don't understand why the gun haters are satisfied with "Criminal's and Cops Only" carrying guns. The founding fathers of this country would be ashamed of these thin skinned libs.

"I believe we had a whopping 14 murders last year. To those of you who might say there's more people in Illinois than Maine, i say to you the differential is 12 million to almost two million, that would make it about 70 murders or so in Maine, if there were 12 million people here."

Posted by: Don B. | September 5, 2007 8:34 PM

Simple population numbers are not the issue. Population "density" is!!

In Chicago, where so many live right on top of one another, is a totally different circumstance than rural communities in Maine.

The ability to carry concealed weapons in Chicago would be a disaster. There would be so many accidental shootings, not to mention incidents of "road rage" among other things, you'd have trouble keeping track. It would be the "wild west".

The strongest gun bans in the industrialized world are in England, and they also have among the lowest violent crime rates. Heck, their police (or "bobbies" as I believe they are called) don't even carry guns.

There has to be a better way than guns.

Those that feel they must own a deadly weapon to protect themselves. I feel sorry for you.

Your prediction that concealed carry in major cities would cause many problems is not founded in fact.

There are major cities in Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and a few other states that have "shall issue" concealed carry laws.

The "wild west" predictions you make were made in every single one of these states prior to and upon the passage of shall issue concealed carry laws.

To date, such laws have not resulted in increases in accidental shootings, or deadly road rage incidents, even in the metropolitan areas. The media and big gun control groups would be crawling all over such incidents if they occurred with even minor frequency.

In many cases, police chiefs and sheriffs in the metropolitan areas of those states opposed the passage of such laws for the reasons you state, but after a few years of not seeing the predicted mayhem have changed their opinions, either to being neutral on the issue, or to being supportive of the laws.

Law enforcement is responsible for the protection of the public as a whole, not the individual. Think about it, the police typically respond after a crime has been committed, not before. The state and federal court cases mentioned held that you cannot sue the cops for failing to protect you. Mostly they will try if they can, but all the rulings say is that the cops cannot be everywhere all the time to prevent criminal acts. Their real job is to deal with crimes after the fact.
So, bottom line, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

In reference to the court rulings (yes, there are more than one) that police have no duty to protect individual citizens, Steve 34 asked the following:

"Then why do almost all communities have a phrase such as "To Serve And Protect" on their squad cars?

Please referrence the Supreme Court ruling in question to prove your point, because that doesn't make any sense.

That's like saying the Fire Dept. doesn't have the responsibility to put out fires."

One of the most notorious cases actually happened in Washington DC (the model community that is so safe no one needs guns):

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

In the above case, two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.''

More recently, the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) came before the SCOTUS, where they ruled 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

These are just 2 of the more alarming examples. A small amount of research will yield many others across the nation.

It is unconcscionable for the government to decree that police have no obligation to protect individual citizens from harm and simultaneously criminalize attempts by citizens to arm themselves for self-defense.

To Steve34, please visit the following site for judical rulings regarding police protection.
http://www.policecrimes.com/policeprotection.html

In Warren v District of Columbia the court stated that it is "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

As for why the have "To protect and Serve" on their cars, you'll have to ask them but in general lying to the sheep is business as usual for the police.

It should be noted that current and former police officers are permitted to possess handguns in D.C. You see, their lives are more valuable than average citizens so they are granted the right to protect themselves while not given the obligation to protect others. That's the kind of government our founding fathers sought to avoid.

FWIW, Police are not "highly trained" in the use of firearms. I, and every single US Marine are far better trained than most police officers. Police academies give around 40 hours of firearm training and officers have to qualify twice a year with their service weapon. The qualification requirements are pathetic. Anyone who's ever served in the armed forces could probably pass the semi-annual qualification with one eye covered and one hand tied behind their back. My 12 year old grandson passed the qualification, albeit with a .22 caliber weapon, it's that easy.

So much for the "magic cop" being so highly trained that they can be trusted to possess firearms.

Can anyone show me where in the bill of rights that the authors intended the bill to protect states rights? As I read it it only mentions personal rights.Why would the 2nd only count for the state right and not the collective right to keep and bear arms? In all of the other amendments the "people" refers to all citizens. Also the bill of rights were,as far as I know,a list of our god given rights that are ours for no other reason than being alive not with the restriction of being in government service for them to apply.

"emphasis ... in arguing that handguns are particularly dangerous relative to other weapons (e.g. shotguns and rifles)"

It is insanity to think that the public will be safer if thugs switch to shotguns.

"I have no problem with the tight gun laws of Chicago, where so many people live in close proximity, accidents would be commonplace if allowed in all hands."

I guess that accounts for all the accidents and lead-spewing death in all the other cities in the USA. Oh wait...

Steve says "The strongest gun bans in the industrialized world are in England, and they also have among the lowest violent crime rates. Heck, their police (or "bobbies" as I believe they are called) don't even carry guns."

You need to get out more. Theirs is 2.5 times greater than ours (assuming the UK Home Office doesn't LIE about their data). Do some research before spouting your lies.

in re Rob S's comment:

"Can anyone show me where in the bill of rights that the authors intended the bill to protect states rights? As I read it it only mentions personal rights.Why would the 2nd only count for the state right and not the collective right to keep and bear arms? In all of the other amendments the "people" refers to all citizens. Also the bill of rights were,as far as I know,a list of our god given rights that are ours for no other reason than being alive not with the restriction of being in government service for them to apply."

Refer, please, to Amendments IX and X to the Constitution, which read:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As I was taught in 11th grade American Civics class in Jacksonville Senior High School, NC, the first 8 amendments to the Constitution are generally considered to list the individual rights of the individual citizens. Hence the term "the people" in the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to the individual private citizens, not any arm of the government. Amendments IX and X list the rights of the states as sovereign entities separate from the federal government. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, after the Civil War, established that state laws could not deny a citizen the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. So the state (or DC) may enact some reasonable restrictions on the rights (you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater even if you have free speech), but may not totally deny the rights. DC's laws go too far in denying the 2nd Amendment rights to the citizens of DC.

First, the Second only prevents the right "of the people" to keep and bear arms from being infringed.

(and gun owners felt infringed latley?)

And, FYI... Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

Other examples...
Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

To all the people who want to give up their rights, to all that want to cut and run, I tell you: You have never fled your country, you have never been victims of piracy on the high seas, you have never suffered in a refugee camp, you have never starved and you have never thought or even know how to respect and cherish your rights. I for one recognize what few rights I have as recognized by a few wise men that founded this country and you forgot their lessons - shame on you anti-gunners. God help us if we loose this one.

If Guns kill people then...

Pencils misspell words

Cars cause traffic accidents

Beer make people drink

Spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat