Protection and the Federal Government

The federal Government has numerous times attempted total disarmament of felons.. and in some cases, there is substantial argument for that impairment. But given the distinct argument in DC vs Heller, as to the necessity for the firearms for self-defense, upheld by the supreme court... might there not be an argument for felons?

There have been numerous attempts in the Federal level to expand the blanket prohibition to misdomeanor sex offenses, mentioned in the congressional 'debate' (if one can call it a debate when the time and argument is assigned by the promulgator of the bill) on H.R. 4472. But at what point does the government establish a protected right to the expectation of protection?

If there is no right, under a number of rulings to protection, then where does the protection lie? Naught but in our own hands, friends. But denial of the ability to protect oneself, is an implied assumption of the duty to protect, and the right to the same protection.

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty
is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

Cases known supporting this:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)


Can any government protect, however? No, they cannot. There is no way to balance protection with rights. If you look to the protection programs for federal witnesses, the conditions are those of a prison.. they are protected 'for their own good' and have no civil rights. This is not the part of the Government, nor in its power for any class of citizens.

When is it that we must demand our right to be protected, or to be able to protect ourselves? At what point does that protection become a mandate? And, considering the nature of protection, do we dare ask them to protect?

Protective custody is still custody, and after all, the ghettoes of Germany were originally protective in nature. It is easier once one is out of sight, and out of mind of the people that they are being protected from, to remove them utterly.

So in whose hand lies our defense? Is it the hand of god? Or does god work through us? If there is a just and loving god, that has granted the foundation of our nation, as was argued by the founding fathers, is it not just as binding upon us and our foundation? Are we not still citizens, bound to the cause of liberty? If we cannot protect our own rights, we also cannot protect the rights of others. If the police cannot protect, we gain the duty to protect ourselves, and our families.

By opening the registry to the general public, and sensationalizing and demonizing the registrants, is it not removal of the limited protection of privacy? WHen before, one had to search out the information, and actually be affected by it, is it not a de facto destruction of our right to self-protection and self-determination?

By what means do they argue that such is applicable? By interstate commerce... but are we not as well those who engage in it? Does this not still make us all citizens?

Should they strip that too of us, does that make their actions any greater? Are we not still humans? How long until we again are stripped of even that dignity?

And is it not already occurring? Shows like 'to catch a predator' and news reports sensationalizing the 'worst of the worst' as they like to call it...

The stereotypes written of 'chester the molester' and so many other things are only going farther in this demonization. We look out into the world, and fear for our safety, as citizens and as humans. We fear for the safety of ourselves, our children, and even the ultimate rights and freedoms of those who persecute us.

But what means have we to resist? Only education, now, and prayer, and thought, and remonstrance. We have no power beyond that of the poll, and the education, and they attempt even to take that away from us.

Is it not truth that any nation that removes any rights from any citizen, natural rights, not freedoms, rights granted, not by the government, but by the state of being human... has ceased to respect all rights of all citizens? Is it not true that any removal of rights expands to the maximum of the void of outcry which is the part of all speakers, all voters, all citizens?

Mercy is the other pan of the balance of justice, and in no case can any weight be removed on either side of that scale. This is the purpose of the jury, to try the law and the facts, to try the very constitutionality of the proceedings, and to try with a just conscience the dictates of what it is to be human.

That is justice... and when the debt to society is paid, even if it is paid by the life of the one judged, the debt is over. No more can be asked of any man, nor an indeterminate sentence given by writ of the congress can be instituted, nor can a community nor any human being deny them their rights and freedoms, as those freedoms were restored after the service of their sentence.


This is the fight we fight... a fight of lassitude, of ignorance, of prejudice, of hardened hearts, and closed minds... but we can and must fight. We have the advantage of truth, a sword that while two-edged, cuts through the armour of lies and hypocracy that surrounds the issue.

And should there be no end to the ties, should we not cut the gordian knot? If there be no patience, no compassion, and no redemption within the government, when the government respects not the rights of even the least citizen... is it still a duly and justly constituted government?

When we, as a people, are guaranteed the rights for which our forefathers fought... is it the place of any duly elected government to deny those rights?

It is time to take back our powers from our government. It is time to take back our places of polling from easily-influenced machines, to return the counting and storage of the votes into the public view. It is time, from the county level to the state level, to remind the federal government that they are, and must be servants of the people and of the several states, and that intrusions upon the sovereign rights of any human being is not to be tolerated.

Our battle is at the polling places.. from county to federal. Our battle si for the hearts and minds of those who would do wrongly to their fellow men. Our battle is one of redemption, not of condemnation. Our battle is one of love.. not of anger. Returning ourselves, and our government to the fold from which it has separated itself is our duty, our right, and our oath as citizens, not by violence, but by the simple act of recognizing our rights and powers as citizens, and the governments derived powers which we grant them.

Lest we forget... that the government is of, by, and for the people. It is a servant of our interests, a steward of our nation, and as such, should such a steward fail in his duties, it must be gently, but firmly reminded of whence the duties originate.

And that is the path of the citizen, and the society.. remonstrance, discussion, honesty, compassion, are all parts of government... even for those who wrong us. No man may be removed of his right to self-protection save by his own choice.. and any man who would be so foolish to allow another his protection, has admitted that he has none.