From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: The Right to be Defended (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:53:50 GMT

In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <C0Fz6n.CLB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Amar Caves) writes:
>>In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writs:
>>>>>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
>>>>>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?
>>>>
>>>>She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of
>>>>self defense should be enough.
>>>
>>>And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.
>>
>>Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
>>that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.
>
>In what case?

       The only time the police have any legal obligation (that is, one
where you can seek damages if they fail to pursue it) to defend someone
is if they have previously specifically promised you protection.  They
have no general duty to protect citizens, even if they see an attack in
progress.  The court refused to create such a duty, because it felt
(and it was correct) that this would create too great a burden on the
police.  (Imagine being sued for every case of assault an officer
was not there to stop.)

>>>>playing by them,"  you should abide by them and work to change them.  Not
>>>>accept them because the "state makes the rules."  The state is the servant
>>>>of the people, not the master of them.
>>>
>>>Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?
>>
>>Gotta get there first.  If things are squashed down so they can never
>>reach that level then it's obviously not going to happen eh?
>
>Has that been happening?

       In at least one case, the BATF chose not the appeal a
gun-favorable ruling to a higher court, thereby preventing a wider
precedent from being created.  (The ruling, currently, is only in
effect in that circuit.)  This was the one about whether or not
the feds have the authority to regulate firearms for any reason other
than taxes.
       The BATF then pretty much said they were going to ignore the
ruling.

>>>There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
>>>next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
>>>axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
>>>high tech firm.
>>
>>He was such a quiet boy.
>>
>>>Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.
>>
>>Pardon me for being blunt Rick, but whates the HELL is your point?  SO
>>far, you've successfully avoided answering most questions presented
>>you by changing subjects slightly, and going on a different tack.
>>What opinion are you trying to present?  Or are you playing devils
>>advocate?  What's the deal?
>
>The point is that everything isn't black and white.  There are gray areas
>where it is not easy to justify taking control of gun permits away from
>the state.

       Taking?

>If gun laws are changed to allow anyone who has the money to
>buy a gun, then a lot of other laws must also change.

       I hate to burst your bubble, but there are states in this Union
which allow just that.

>If the laws change
>to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
>then privacy laws in this country will have to change.

       Excuse me, but if "anyone who has the money" can buy a gun,
you've pretty much ruled out background checks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns