Why legal guns still cause arrests: Time to stand up!

'I am not quite sure what hysteria is about people carrying anything'

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/093dabfd0aee.jpg[/atsimg]

James Goldberg of Glastonbury, Conn., recently was arrested for carrying a firearm at his neighborhood Chili's restaurant, and his release because his actions were legal has sparked a major debate over the Second Amendment.

But the legislative director for the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, Jim Wallace, contends the case is evidence of the successful work of gun opponents in demonizing the hardware itself, using fear to crack down on a legal activity.

"I am not quite sure what the hysteria is about people carrying anything. If police officers carry openly, is the general public scared? They shouldn't be. Nor should they be scared if their fellow citizens are doing the same thing. The problem is the irrational stigma, probably created by the media, about guns themselves." Wallace said.

What the gun opponents are fostering is a basic mistrust of their fellow citizens.

Wallace Stated.
Source: www.wnd.com...

And that is why I put this up today. The article goes on to talk about different states and so many different laws for each state that even Cops don't know the Gun Carry laws. I think it is clear to see that with each passing year, the Gun Opponents are ever more successful in getting Gun Carring law more stricker and problematic that less and less people beleive there is a need for the right to bare arms concept.

With the world in the mess it is in today, one doens't know if they will make it back from a trip to the mall! Cops can't protect anyone most of the time let alone little old You. The best proven method of self-preservation-Is YOU protecting yourself.

You pick any tradic event where some nut goes off with a gun or otherwise and ends up killing and hurting people. How many of them people do you think wish they had a gun in their hands to defend themselves as oppossed to how many of them thought they could just wait out the attack until the cops get there (I called 911 so they be here shortly-right....) (a bit more on the police shortly).

Now, you all know the story of our country and the people who used guns to build up American and defend themselves while doing it. Those principles can not die. We are a whole must demand lesser laws-so one can carry outside their home state-which is just a joke, stopping you right to carry at a State line.

Ask yourself this: How many people attack cops who have weapons on them? Next time some law enforcement official questions you about your firearm as to why do you have it on and in the open etc. Ask him the same thing. Remember, you actually have more rights than the cop to cary a weapon. He is hired and then granted permission to have the firearm. (think about that).

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the Right-to-Carry should be expanded so people who are legally complying with the laws are not harrassed or given grief but Law Enforcement and Society (the part that has been conditioned to hate guns). You need to get more involved in the whole process to ensure the opposing side doens't win the legislative/political fight-without firing a shot (so-to-speak).

Here is a good response when applying for a carry permit (if asked why you want one) or if a cop ask you etc. Can you (Sheriff/Cop) protect me 24 hours a day? "No" will be the response-if they are being honest. Then you say, "I can".

This is what it is suppose to be like and NOT a crime. Stand up for your Rights!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d3e8f62b9f2.jpg[/atsimg]

In case you missed this one. Has gotten flags and stars but no comments.

Maybe this time threw the posting list......

I feel this is one of the TOP important issues facing our country that hardly goes noticed. The only media you hear (mostly) is the bad things/stories with guns involved.

They don't really or ever talk about the people that were saved, or who saved themselves, with personal firearms that they legally were in possession with at the time they defended themselves.

Yes, I say the media is just as much invloved with the downplaying of your rights to run ownership and carrying rights-Yes a Conspiracy with Anti-Gun advocates. What say you?

reply to post by anon72


Here's some case law showing the police have no duty to protect you:

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

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.

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."

Read more: Source

This means that the cops can stand by watching you get beaten, raped and killed, all the while doing nothing more than munching down on their donuts and they could not be held accountable for their inaction.

While I'm sure most cops wouldn't ignore someone in trouble, I'd sure feel a whole lot better knowing I was able to defend myself, just in case some dirtbag lazy cop decided to exercise his right to do nothing.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Great info and posting.

Exactly what I'm talking about. No one can/will protect you best like yourself.

I am very surprised more member didn't chime in on this topic/thread.