A What-if Question

[C. Richard Archie]

Question relative to a hypothetical situation.

Say a HCP Holder is assaulted within the confines of a local park, rendered “Gun Free” by local resolution.

Say the perpetrator is a habitual criminal, with many occurrences of violence against his fellow citizens. The local Judge has seen this individual many times before his bench, but allows parole. The Police, having been required to search out and arrest the offender numerous times, are also aware of his proclivity to do harm.

Would there be an opportunity to seek damages from the local entity for denying the citizen his Constitutional right to individual self protection, guaranteed first by the 2nd Amendment, recognized and supported by the Federal and State Legislature, ultimately restrained by the local governing body? As I understand it, the Police are not charged with protection, merely investigation of crimes. Could it be construed that the Local Authority is denying you the basic rights espoused in the the Preamble to the Constitution, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[johnharris]

Off the cuff, the government would argue its a policy determination (legislative decision) authorized to them by the state legislature. Generally, policy determinations, even if bad, do not give rise to actionable claims.

[backwoodsman]

If thats the case, then how can they claim these laws are there to protect citizens? seems to me ,they are there to protect criminals from being killed. the criminals must really be pleased with all the places they can offend others without fear of retribution.

[johnharris]

There generally is no fundamental concept among legislators about passing laws to allow citizens to maximize their ability to take responsibility and carry it out for their own protection and security. The TN General Assembly is moving somewhat in that direction, but there are still too many there who function in the "Nanny State" mentality and defer totally to law enforcement on the needs to get "guns" in general out of the hands of the public.

However, when it comes to local governments, they are going to now have the opportunity to prove that they have no concept of the rights of man, the relationship between the citizen, the state and the local government and they are going to - as quickly as possible - close those local parks to permit holders to do what? Protect the parks and the public from permit holders? Really?