As NRA members, one of our key roles in defending liberty is to educate people who have little understanding of the real meaning of the Second Amendment. And often our responsibility is to dissect the biggest lies of the gun-ban crowd—among them, the notion that individuals don’t need guns to protect themselves because that’s the job of the police.
“… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
“The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”
Those are the opinions of the District of Columbia Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals issued in 1978 and 1981 blocking a suit by three young women who had been raped and beaten for 14 hours during a nightmarish home invasion in 1975. Two of the women had repeatedly called the D.C. police. They watched a police car slowly roll by their townhouse after their first call for help, then were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, when indeed it was not.
The decisions in that case, Warren v. District of Columbia, came at a time when D.C. was still enforcing its ban on firearms in the home for self-defense.
The decision by those lower courts in Warren mirrored decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The latest high-court opinion declaring police have no duty to protect ordinary citizens was handed down in June 2005.
All this gives the lie to the gun-ban crowd’s mantra: “let law enforcement protect you.”