Would you like to join my mailing list? Just enter your email below to sign up!

Concealed Carry


Not my opinion, these are facts.

I am going to point out some court decisions that have come down on the side of the police. These cases were filed by people who were victims of violent crime, or filed by the surviving members of  families on behalf of a  member killed by violent criminals. They have two things in common, 1. The police did not arrive in time, or at all, to save the victim(s), and  2. No one has ever won a decision in court against the police because someone died before they could respond. Here are a sample of  four cases to highlight why the Second Amendment is vital. At the end I will give a brief summary as to why this is the way things will always remain.

This first case, (1) concerns two women in D.C. who called the police for help when they heard people breaking into a closed off section of their apartment building. They called many times over an hours time frame before the criminals broke into where they were hiding. Over the next 14 hours they were repeatedly raped before the criminals decided to leave. The police never came. The criminals were never caught. (pay close attention to what the court ruled)

1. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection…a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.”

This next decision, (2) from the court is simply chilling, but, in lock step with the thread that runs through all of these court decisions. (pay close attention to the courts ruling) For more on this case and other cases like those mentioned on this page go to:

2. In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of  Appeals ruled, “[There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.]”

This next case, (3) involves a woman, (Linda) who had a restraining order against her violent husband, she lived in the city of New York. She was killed by her husband. The city had then, as it has now, a ban on firearms, even for protection,   Linda was a good little citizen (victim), followed the law, so,  did not own a gun…….and died because of it. (pay very close attention to the court ruling ).

 3.  Riss v. NYC, (1958). Justices rule Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone. The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court issued protective order against a violent husband, making an arrest mandatory for a violation. Linda’s family lawyer stated;What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry/own any weapon for self defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely on the City of New York  for protection which now denies all responsibility to her”.

Is it starting to  SINK IN YET ?

And last, but certainly not least, # 4 …(pay close attention)

4.   Castle Rock v. Gonzales, on June 27,  the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales, did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales husband, with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales 3 children to death after abducting them, the police told her to wait and see if he brought the children back and made no move to locate the children. Mrs. Gonzales could not get the Supreme Court to change their 7-2 decision for one’s individual protection.

It is a well settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen received death threats.

There have been over 10 various Supreme and lower court cases the individual has never won, and never will win. Notably, the Supreme Court stated this about the responsibility for the security of your family and loved ones security; You, and only you, are responsible for your security and that of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that “the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole“.

I thought society was made up of individuals? ?

This is the rock bottom line folks, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! When you hear all the clowns, (our own ‘reps’) screaming about ‘gun control’ and banning law abiding citizens from owning guns, or cities forcing people to rely on the police for protection, don’t buy it. Never give up your right to self defense, even if that means ‘breaking’ the law,……maybe you should read number 3 over and over again, until it sinks in. If, as the Supreme Court says, “that we alone are responsible for our own safety”, we can never allow anyone to negate our Second Amendment or God given rights to self defense!

NRA and Relevance


I know the courts will never allow a case to hold police responsible where someone died because they did not respond in time, or at all, that would open the flood gates of litigation, bankrupting police departments all over the country, because it is a common fact they get to the scene after the fact to gather evidence. So stop being naive by thinking the police will get there in time, it is your responsibility, and duty to defend yourself and your family at the very moment crime happens. The police are the ‘clean-up crew’, you make sure it will not be any of your family members they will put into body bags.

I would much rather be judged by a jury of my peers, than be murdered, and carried by six to the cemetery because I FOOLISHLY put my ‘trust‘ in the government to protect me and mine.

And you should take note of this; Even in light of the above mentioned facts, there are those in positions of authority all over the country that treat the people in their jurisdictions as if they were mere annoyance’s. Example: In San Diego County, Sheriff William Gore will not consider issuing a gun permit unless someone can show they have ‘good cause’ for it first. This is his definition of ‘good cause’; “A set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harms way”, adding to this, “fear for ones personal safety is not, standing alone, considered by me as ‘good cause’.”

Mark’s Note: About Sheriff Gore. In my estimation, after reading this highly educated pinheads convoluted ‘reasoning’, I can only come to one conclusion. He, and many other, politically appointed  hacks must think, {whats the point of having authority if you cant abuse people with it by playing ‘God’ with their safety}?  I believe he, and others, are callously putting the lives of people in danger because they want to and because they can. With that in mind, remember to read number 3 over and over until it ‘sinks’ in.

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”THOMAS JEFFERSON-

Submitted by Mark Shean on 2-24-2011

About Me

Reviews  Towns Served    Gun Sense #44, KSG 12ga. Shotgun Demonstration

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Gun Sense #28, Second Amendment Relevant? You Bet You're Life!, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

One Response to “Gun Sense #28, Second Amendment Relevant? You Bet You’re Life!”

  • Scott says:

    Mark, Well said, and extremely valid points.

    NOTE: Thank you Scott, These facts stand on their own. MS

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Reply