This is super old news. You must be new around here. Welcome!
I think everybody here knows that. Not bad to point it out again.
Every time an Obama son makes a terror attack, the government wants to disarm victims and keep its sponsorship of Obamasons intact...
Officials are stuck on stupid like that.
They don’t have the duty, or the ability.
>> End of article: Why do so many government proposed solutions involve limiting the general public’s access to firearms?
Because structured limitations on society gives the impression of security despite the evidence that it doesn’t — the evidence mainstream media intentionally avoids.
This has been the Supreme Court’s position for over a *century*. This is not new, it’s just a repeat.
This is a well known fact. Forty years or so.
And this ruling shows why the 2nd Amendment is and always has been an individual right.
JoMa
It's easy to become a good shot with an AR-15 at 100 yards.
Plus, you can buy 20/30/40 round magazines.
Win-win.
I have been on FR a year and a half and I am not versed in the law, so I found your story highly interesting. Thanks for posting.
There is a difference between protecting in general and when a cop is witnessing a crime in progress.
I haven’t done the actual research into cases, but I believe that cases like those above were not cases where a cop was standing by and just watching it happen.
The cops are not your private security force and the court will not hold them to that standard, otherwise, they’d be liable for every crime in the country,e.g., I pay taxes for you to patrol the hood, so I shouldn’t have been robbed...
I haven’t heard of cases brought against cops for the mob situation like in anti-trump rallies where cops watch someone get attacked. That type of case might actually have some chance of success.
Property damage in the baltimore fiasco probably would not make it that far through the court because they would start off with the position that the damage was “cured” by insurance, so they would have no standing to sue, or something along those lines.
So let me ask, can this ruling be applied to say, Baltimore or other towns the liberal, white hating mayors tell the police to stand down? So store owners would have no standing if they sued?
Cops are there to generate revenue, do the paperwork and in rare instances stop/prevent crime.
It’s also true, that law enforcement in general exists to protect the criminals. Chew on that for a while.
We all knew that.
The primary duty of police is to draw the chalk line around you body at the scene of your murder.
They have guns to protect themselves not you.
So the Fed Govt says that LEOS do not necessarily have to protect you, but we’re also not going to grant national reprocity to allow you to defend yourselves everywhere you go.
Nice Govt we got there.
We all know that we are our own first line of defense. That is why I am so pissed off that NJ won’t allow open or concealed carry except to ex cops or protection services. We little people don’t count for shit in NJ.
Why do I stay? Family. Plus I like the Jersey shore and the tomatoes.
To Protect and Serve whom then?