The Public Duty Doctrine.8: 9-0 vs 5-4

I've decided to only go to The Public Duty Doctrine.10 -- for now. I need some distance, a break. The topic is depressing.

The weapon-of-choice in America is the handgun. Police have their "standard issue" revolvers and criminals prefer them because of their ability to purchase and conceal. Law-abiding citizens need to remain on par with the other two.

In June of 2008, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision (5-4) in the case of District of Columbia versus Heller, siding with Heller's right to own and bear arms (in the District), as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

In September, one of Heller's attorneys, Robert A. Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, came to the University of North Carolina at Asheville and spoke to a gathering of interested people. I was present. It was videotaped. I have a copy.

When Levy finished his speech -- regarding how the case originated; the history of bearing arms, going all the way back to England; the oral arguments before the Court; does the 2nd Amendment speak only to "militias"; and the outcome -- I asked him if he and his colleagues specifically mentioned The Public Duty Doctrine to the justices as a defense of Heller's right to own and bear arms, that government has no legal duty to protect. He said they did. He was very emphatic on the matter.

I later pulled up the actual oral arguments before the Court on the internet, and nowhere was "it" mentioned specifically. I thought it might have been mentioned in the friends-of-the-court briefs; there again, it was not mentioned, specifically. There was one that mentioned it, but only in generalities, not by name. In other words, the words "The Public Duty Doctrine" was never mentioned, to my knowledge.

Without knowing the key words, it's like finding a needle in a haystack.

Again, I'm no lawyer. But if I had been able to present the case before the Court, as opposed to these "public-interest" lawyers, I would have saved everybody alot of time and money by simply stating this:

The right to own and bear arms is not solely embedded in the Second Amendment. The right to own and bear arms must be viewed in the context of The Public Duty Doctrine. That is, government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect (PDD); they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect (sovereign immunity), because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place. Government must recognize this dilemma: the "natural right" of self-defense is not the same as saying government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect........ They are two different issues, although, consequentially connected. Based on this reality, I expect the Court to rule, unanimously, 9-0, in favor of Heller. To do otherwise, smacks of totaliarianism; it would be turning a blind-eye to the one-and-only-public-safety issue of our time. I rest my case.

(Time and cost involved: 2 minutes and airplane tickets)