2005 Supreme Court Decision

275 Views 4 Replies 5 Participants Last post by CountryGun, Jan 17, 2011

rainmaker

Discussion Starter · Jan 17, 2011

There was a decision in 2005 by the Supreme Court ruling (at least in part) that the government is not required to protect any specific citizen, that providing us with protection is at the discretion of the police / government. That may not be exactly it, but I think it is close.

Anyway, does anyone know the specific case name or number, or even better, a link that will take me to a page where I can read the entire ruling?

IMHO, this is one of the most profound supreme court rulings ever made, and it received a suprisingly small amount of press coverage. There are a few people I would like to "educate" concerning why I feel the need to keep firearms and why I have no faith in calling 911, especially in times of national emergency. I think the ruling could be a great teaching tool.

Save

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

The Math Teacher

· #2 · Jan 17, 2011

Is this what you are looking for?

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 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 to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

Save

smn

· #3 · Jan 17, 2011

This all goes back to DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 US 189 - Supreme Court 1989
Deshaney is a very tragic case. Read it in its entirety.

Save

Phil1979

· #4 · Jan 17, 2011

This case ought to have wide publicity. If it did, we might see a lot more jury nullifications in cases where people are charged with violating malum prohibitum weapons laws. If the government basically says "you're on your own", that should mean we are free to protect ourselves wherever we go, period.

Save

CountryGun

· #5 · Jan 17, 2011

Phil1979 said:
This case ought to have wide publicity. If it did, we might see a lot more jury nullifications in cases where people are charged with violating malum prohibitum weapons laws. If the government basically says "you're on your own", that should mean we are free to protect ourselves wherever we go, period.

Well said!

Save

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month