Kamala claims right to walk into your home and inspect your gun safe

Kafka said:
Surely you MUST realize this is purely paranoia. There is literally NO ONE in the race who wants anything to do with that.

I know it feels important for you to maximize the "threat"...but that really isn't a useful approach if you want your side to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Its later than you think.
 
Kafka said:
If you know anything about the cases do feel free to chime in with the actual information or verbiage. Thanks.
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone​


The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
www.nytimes.com

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone​


The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.
Click to expand...

NYT is not the case law. Hit up "FindLaw" or some resource that has the actual ruling.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'm not going to feed in to your desire to find some 'loophole' to justify your wrongness. go read it and when you're done, i'll look for your concession that I was right
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm not looking for a loophole. I'm trying to figure out how the court differentiates the duty to the individual from their duty to the collection of individuals.

This is a central point to the case. I'm surprised you didn't run across anything about it in your extensive "reading" of the caselaw.
 
Kafka said:
LOL. I'm not looking for a loophole. I'm trying to figure out how the court differentiates the duty to the individual from their duty to the collection of individuals.

This is a central point to the case. I'm surprised you didn't run across anything about it in your extensive "reading" of the caselaw.
Click to expand...
it's not a central point to the case. you're trying to make it one with a made up idea of what you consider society. the court flat out stated that police owe no protection to individuals, absent a special relationship
 
Harassing anyone who refuses to give up their guns is the mission....as they are in your house they will look for any excuse to jail you.....take away your kids....and so on.
 
Kafka said:
LOL. I'm not looking for a loophole. I'm trying to figure out how the court differentiates the duty to the individual from their duty to the collection of individuals.

This is a central point to the case. I'm surprised you didn't run across anything about it in your extensive "reading" of the caselaw.
Click to expand...
The law is whatever the Regime says it is today.....the Constitution is over.
 
The more I read about this "Public Duty Doctrine" the more it seems related to torts and individuals right to sue the police for failure to protect an individual. It doesn't really feel like they mean that police are not here for our protection.

It arose apparently largely out of the elimination of sovereign immunity in many areas.
 
zymurgy said:
"We're going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs," Harris told a group of reporters in May 2007.

That is disgusting's and disqualifying

now lineup shit stains and defend this bullshit - we know you will
Click to expand...
It's also a good way for a government inspector to get damaged.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
As San Francisco's district attorney, Kamala Harris told legal gun owners in her community that authorities could "walk into" their homes to inspect whether they were storing their firearms properly under a new law she helped draft. "We're going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs", Harris told a group of reporters in May 2007.

The remarks came during a press conference introducing legislation that Harris helped draft, which sought to impose penalties for gun owners who fail to store their firearms properly at home.

This is the Law in every state in the Union now!
Click to expand...
No it isn't, ya dumb Lizard.

It's not only unconstitutional, it's a good way for such an inspector to get damaged.
 
Kafka said:
Got any context for this from, oh, wait, 14 years ago?



You would think being a convicted felon would be disqualifying, but it isn't. You'd think encouraging a violent coup against the US government would be disqualifying, but it isn't.




Don't worry, your right to own guns and enjoy turning on the TV for yet another shocking school shooting report will not be infringed.
Click to expand...
DEMOCRATS are responsible the the school shootings, moron. It is DEMOCRATS that deny and discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top